J LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 







$ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ! 




DEBATE 



ON THE 






Destiny of the "Wicked. 



BETWEEN 



ELDER GEORGE T. CARPENTER, 



OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, 



EEV. JOHN HUGHES, 

OF THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH. 

1 



" And searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things 
were so."— Acts 27 : 11. 



Reported by REV. E. H. WARING, Knoxville, Iowa. 



OSKALOOSA, IOWA : 

CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN, Publishers, 
1875. 







\s 



according to act of Congress, in the year 1875, by 
CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 



STEREOTYPED BY 

MILLS & COMPANY, 

DES MOINES, IOWA. 



J 



PREFACE. 



In a mutual love of the Truth, and a desire to dis- 
seminate the Truth, we met in discussion of the differ- 
ences between us, and the result of our united endeavors 
we hereby present to the public, in the fervent desire 
that it may advance the cause of true religion in the 
world. We would ask a careful and candid reading 
from a discriminating and truth-loving Public. 

We embrace this opportunity of expressing our ob- 
ligations to Rev. E. H. Waring for his impartial and 
very correct Report of our Discussion. 

G. T. Carpenter. 
J. Hughes. 

Oskaloosa, Iowa, March 16, 1875. 

The report of the discussion was reviewed and cor- 
rected by the Disputants and Reporter, at Oskaloosa, 
Iowa, March 16 and 17, 1875. 

E. H. Waring, Reporter, 



PROPOSITIONS AND RULES. 



Eeport of a debate between Elder George T. Carpenter, of the 
Church of Christ, and Eev. John Hughes, of the Universalist 
Church, held in the Universalist chapel, Bloomfield, Iowa, February 
2-5, 1875. 

MODEEATOES. 

Gen'l J. B. Weaver, President. 
Elder D. E. Dungan. Eev. J. L. Shinn. 

PEOPOSITIONS. 

I. The Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of all 

mankind. Hughes affirms. 

II. The Scriptures teach that those who die in willful disobedience 

to the gospel will suffer endless punishment. Carpenter 
affirms. 

EULES OF DEBATE. 

1. Each proposition to be discussed during four sessions of two ' 
hours each, in half hour alternate speeches. 

2. The rules of argument laid down in Hedge's Logic are agreed 
upon as the rules to govern in this discussion. 

3. No new matter is to be used in the closing speech on each 
proposition, except in reply to matter introduced in the preceding 
speech. 

G. T. Carpenter. 
J. Hughes. 
Bloomfield, Iowa, Feb. 2, 1875. 



Universal Salvation, 



FIRST PROPOSITION 



THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THE FINAL HOLINESS AND HAPPINESS OF 
ALL MANKIND. 



ME. HUGHES' FIEST SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men : — We have convened for the purpose of entering 
upon the investigation of the most important question 
that has ever occupied the attention of man. No topics 
are of deeper interest than those of religion ; and of all 
the questions pertaining to religion, none are of greater 
importance than the destiny of man. This is a ques- 
tion that comes home to each of us, and touches our 
most vital interests. It demands of us, then, the most 
candid treatment, and the most conscientious and pray- 
erful consideration. 

It is to me a pleasure to appear in defense of what I 
regard to be the truth in regard to the destiny of man. 
This pleasure, let me say, arises from the honest and 
hearty conviction that the side I shall maintain in this 
discussion is attested by the soundest reason and the 
plainest declarations of Divine Writ. And while I 



FIEST PROPOSITION. 



readily % accord to Eld. Carpenter, my opponent on this 
occasion, honesty and love of truth, equal to my own, 
yet I claim an advantage of him, at least in one respect. 
The doctrine I shall plead for not only meets all the 
requirements of my intellect, but it most completely 
satisfies all the desires of my heart. I feel that this 
is an honor both to my doctrine and myself. 

But I am confident that brother Carpenter cannot 
say as much for his doctrine. It may satisfy his intel- 
lect, but he certainly can not rejoice in it. It does not 
fill the requirements of his heart. And while this 
throws doubt on his doctrine, it honors him. All 
through this discussion, while laboring to establish his 
side of the question, he can but wish in his heart that 
mine were true. And this, I repeat, honors him. 
Nothing worse could be said of a man than that he 
loves the doctrine of endless punishment, and takes 
pleasure in a belief of its truth. Said Alexander 
Campbell to Dolplms Skinner, in their discussion : " I 
own that you have the popular side of the question. 
One can hardly contend for endless punishment, how 
devoted soever to the truth and will of God, without 
appearing malevolent." I would say that the malevo- 
lence which the heart feels is in the doctrine of end- 
less misery. 

It is also a pleasure to me to know that in brother 
Carpenter I meet an opponent of ability ; a man com- 
petent to do all in favor of his side of the questions in 
debate that any one could be reasonably expected to do. 

A word also to those who have come here to listen to 
this discussion. I am highly gratified in seeing so 
many present, thus manifesting your interest in these 
great questions. I may be permitted to say, also, I 
trust that you came here as real listeners, and that you 
are of the class who have ears to hear ; and that you 
will give us both a candid hearing, being honest with 
the truth, yourselves, and your God. It is certainly no 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 7 

man's interest to be deceived, or to deceive himself on 
subjects of such moment. 

The proposition that I am to affirm in this discussion 
reads as follows : 

The Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of 
all mankind. 

Before introducing any proofs of this proposition, I 
will define its terms, that the precise point at issue may 
be clearly understood by all. One of the leading terms 
is the word " Scriptures." Of course this means the 
Old and New Testaments — the Bible. It is the Book 
of proof. The final appeal must be to the Scriptures. 
All other proof or testimony must be but corroborative, 
or as tending to a right understanding of the Bible. 
Whatever arguments I shall draw from reason will be 
based upon truths found in the Bible. 

" The Scriptures teach. ,y That is in the right mean- 
ing of the words of the Bible, as decided by the best 
interpretation of these words, according to the rules 
and laws of interpretation of any other book or writing. 

" The final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
The state of mankind referred to is the final state or 
condition. The final state is the last one, beyond which 
there is no other. It is, then, the final condition of 
mankind to which my proposition relates. Any pas- 
sage of Scripture, therefore, my brother may bring for- 
ward as touching the condition of man, will not be 
pertinent to the question in debate unless it relates to 
the final state of man. You will please bear this in 
mind. 

This final condition of man I am to affirm is to be 
one of " holiness and happiness." I am not to affirm 
the salvation of men in sin, but from sin. Holiness 
and happiness is my idea of salvation. 

As a Universalist you will not expect me to make 
any exceptions to the phrase " all mankind." I accept 
the proposition, therefore, in its fullest, most palpable 



8 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

meaning, and proceed to prove, without further prelim- 
inary, the final salvation of all mankind. 

I. The Nature of Man. Man by nature is 
body, soul, and spirit. In illustration, I read the fol- 
lowing passages of Scripture : 

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man 
perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light 
affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more 
exceeding and eternal weight of glory ; while we look not at the 
things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen : for the 
things which are seen are temporal ; but the things which are not 
seen are eternal." 2 Cor. 4 : 16-18. 

" For we know that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were 
dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, 
eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to 
be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven : If so be that 
being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this 
tabernacle do groan, being burdened : not for that we would be un- 
clothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up 
of life." 2 Cor. 5:1-4. 

" For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than 
any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul 
and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the 
thoughts and intents of the heart." Heb. 4 : 12. 

" And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray 
God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless 
unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thes. 5 : 23. 

The body is that in which the soul and spirit reside. 
It is the fleshly covering, "house," or " tabernacle," 
the " outward man." The soul, the principle of animal 
life. The spirit, the " inward man," the real man, to be 
invested in the resurrection with a new, spiritual body ; 
clothed with immortality, to live forever in the spirit 
world. 

Man, in the present life, is an intelligent, reasoning, 
moral, and responsible being, held accountable under 
God's moral government. His responsibility includes 
and necessitates the idea of his knowledge of the law, 
and ability to obey the law in its requirements. And this 
constitutes him a free moral agent. 

It will be admitted that all along through this life, 



9 

that man is free to obey God's law, and thus he is 
responsible to God. And without this freedom or abil- 
ity he would not be responsible. Ability is essential to 
responsibility. Now what does death do for man to 
change his nature in any of these respects ? Has man 
less ability and responsibility after death than before? 
Death releases from the body ; lets the spirit at liberty; 
and frees from the body that rational, reasoning, con- 
scio us entity which constitutes the real man, in which 
resides man's ability and responsibility. 

Death, then, is nothing, does nothing that takes away 
the ability to learn the truth, obey the truth, and thus 
be saved. It does not change the nature of man so as 
to be in the way of the holiness and happiness of all 
men. Yea, more ; death frees from the body, the lusts 
of the body, the temptations that come through the 
body, and all the wants of man's fleshly nature. Very 
much that hinders man's growth and development comes 
from the body with its appetites and passions. 

In proof I read the following passages : 

" Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. 
If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the 
eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 
And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof : but he that doeth 
the will of God abideth forever." 1 Jno. 2 : 15-17. 

" But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own 
lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth 
sin ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Jas. 1 : 
14, 15. 

"For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be spiritually mind- 
ed is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against 
God : for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Kom. 8 : 6-8. 

" This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the 
lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the 
Spirit against the flesh : and these are contrary the one to the other ; 
so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of 
the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are 
manifest, which are these, Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, las- 
civiousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, 



10 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, 
and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told 
you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit 
the kingdom of God." Gal. 5 : 16-21. 

After death, then, the spirit will be more free, will 
have more ability, with less hinderances than before 
death. Man, then, will still be responsible to God, with 
all the freedom that responsibility implies. 

Besides, it is the spirit, the rational, thinking part, to 
which all motives and influences are addressed. It is in 
that that God's image resides ; it is the child of God ; 
it is that that is born of God. And all of this is as 
true of man after death as before. There is nothing 
in death, then, that constitutes a reason why those 
dying in sin will not finally become holy and happy. 

Man being in the image of God, the offspring of God, 
therefore the child of God, has that in his nature which 
attracts to the " Father of spirits," and makes him a re- 
ligious, worshiping being. This is a regnant, formative 
principle in his nature, cropping out in the fact that man 
universally is a religious being. And this will be his 
nature in the future world as well as here ; and there, 
being free from the difficulties of this life, and coming 
to a true knowledge, will respond to the call of his 
God-given nature, and become holy and happy. " Then 
shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the 
spirit shall return to the God who gave it." Eccl. 
12:7. 

II. The Nature of God. The nature of God is 
love. " God is love." 1 Jno. 4 : 8, 16. 

Love, infinite and eternal, is the basis of his moral 
nature. All of his moral attributes have their founda- 
tion in it; and all his natural attributes are but the 
infinite instrumentalities of love. It is love that is holy, 
just, true, righteous, merciful, good, and unchangeable. 
It is love that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and infinite 
in wisdom and knowledge. For God is possessed of all 



11 

these perfections, and God is love. The great Apostle 
calls him the " God of love." 2 Cor. 13 : 11. 

To say that all creatures throughout all space are in 
God's hands, and subject to his control, is in effect to 
say that they are in love's hands, and subject to its con- 
trol. And we may affirm of infinite love, that it rules the 
universe, and that all its issues are consistent with love. 
The whole current of the universe flows on the side 
of infinite and eternal benevolence. 

If this is God's nature, then his love must extend to 
every sentient being that ever did, does now, or ever 
will exist. For if God is love, then his love, as he is 
an infinite being, must be unlimited in extent, infinite in 
degree, and endless in duration ! 

God's love, then, extends to all mankind. The Bible 
fully bears me out in this position : 

" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life." Jno. 3 : 16. 

" But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were 
yet sinners, Christ died for us." Kom. 5 : 8. 

" But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he 
loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us to- 
gether with Christ, (by grace ye are saved.)" Eph. 2 : 4, 5. 

Thus God loves all men. He loves them while they 
do not love him ; he loves them when sinners ; yea, 
when dead in sin. Now love invariably seeks the good 
of the object loved. So God seeks the ultimate and 
eternal welfare of all his creatures, as he loves all, 
unless we might say that benevolence is a negative prin- 
ciple in his nature. But this cannot be ; for his love 
takes form in the fact of his goodness, impartial and 
eternal to all mankind. " The Lord is good to all " — 
actively so — " and his tender mercies are over all his 
works." Ps. 145 : 9. 

Love prompted God to devise means for the redemp- 
tion of all men from all sin and error. It prompted 
him to send his Son, his only begotten Son, into 



12 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

the world; "Not to condemn it, but that the world 
through him might be saved." Jno. 3 : 17. God will 
always be love ; his nature is eternal ; therefore he will 
always desire and work for the final good and happiness 
of mankind. He will never leave unfinished his work, 
that he in his infinite goodness has begun; he will 
never give up, much less consign man to the sport of 
endless ruin. 

But let us inquire as to God's intention in the creation 
of man. He must have had a distinct and well defined 
purpose in man's creation ; for a wise being never acts 
without a design. He certainly had no evil intention ; 
for that would be contrary to his nature. It was not 
for the purpose of trying an experiment; for infinite 
wisdom does not need to try experiments, to know what 
will be the result of its actions. Not to add to his glory 
and happiness, for he was infinitely glorious and happy 
in himself. We can but say, in the creation of man, 
God gave expression to his infinite benevolence, u vent 
to his benignity," in the gift of existence to beings who 
should find their glory and joy in his love. Why did 
he create man ? " Thou hast created all things, and for 
thy pleasure they are an*d were created." Rev. 4: 11. 
In what does God take pleasure ? " He delighteth in 
mercy." Mic. 7 : 18. 

God's design, then, in the creation of man, must have 
been good. He could have designed no less than the 
final holiness and happiness of all. I take the distinct 
ground here, that this was God's intention in the 
creation of man ! Let my opponent take his position 
here, either admit my position, or take the ground of 
the Calvinist. There is room for no other. And let 
him be particular, and tell us whether God has ever 
seen cause, or ever will see cause, to change his original 
intention. 

The end had in view in creation must be attained, or 
else God will be disappointed and frustrated in his de- 



MR. HUGHES* FIRST SPEECH. 13 

signs. But this would prove that misery would exist 
in the Divine Mind. For disappointment implies un- 
easiness, and uneasiness implies misery. 

But God cannot be disappointed; for God is om- 
niscient. " His understanding is infinite." Ps". 147 : 5. 
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from 
ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, 
My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." 
Isa. 46 : 10. " Known unto God are all his works from 
the beginning of the world." Acts 15 : 18. 

His design, therefore, concerning man's destiny, 
prompted by infinite benevolence, was formed by infi- 
nite wisdom. That design must, then, be perfect, and 
sure to bring about the result designed. There could 
be neither disappointment nor failure in the case. 

God must have known from all eternity all that we 
should be ; he saw every mutation through which we 
should pass; every sinful act we should commit. If, 
then, any circumstance could arise that would affect his 
regard for us, he as certainly knew it before our creation 
as now. That fact, therefore, must have been as much 
a cause of wrath and hatred in him towards us then as 
after it had transpired. Nevertheless, in full view of all 
it was foreseen that we should be, he loved us. And in 
full view of all the obstacles that could arise to hinder 
our salvation, he designed our final holiness and hap- 
piness. We must say, then, that God will not fail in 
his benevolent designs concerning the destiny of his 
creatures ; unless, indeed, we could say, he lacks power 
to accomplish them. But he is not lacking in power ; 
for God is omnipotent. " He doeth according to his 
will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants 
of the earth : and none can stay his hand, or say unto 
him, What doest thou?" Dan. 4: 35. "For as the 
rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and re- 
turneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh 
it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the 



14 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

sower, and bread to the eater ; so shall my word be that 
goeth forth out of my mouth ; it shall not return unto 
me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and 
it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isa. 
55: 10, 11. "Who worketh all things after the coun- 
sel of his own will." Eph. 1: 11. "The Lord God 
Omnipotent reigneth." Rev. 19 : 6. 

God is omnipotent in the universe of mind as well as 
in the universe of matter. And he, therefore, has the 
ability to overcome all hindrances, and accomplish his 
benevolent designs. If, therefore, all are not finally 
saved, if any are abandoned to endless sinning and 
suffering, it must be that they get beyond the reach 
and control of God's love, and he does not desire or 
design their salvation. But this is impossible, for 
God is omnipresent. 

" Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ? or whither shall 
I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, 
thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou 
art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and 
dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; even there shall 
thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." 
Ps. 139: 7-10. 

God being omnipresent, love is omnipresent; for " God 
is love." It surrounds, pervades, and sustains all 
things. To get beyond its reach is impossible. The 
sinner is in its hands here ; equally so when he goes 
hence. And though he may find it u a fearful thing to 
fall into the hands of the living God," yet he will event- 
ually find them to be the hands of love, as sinful David 
did when he said, " Let me fall now into the hand of 
the Lord ; for very great are his mercies ; but let me not 
fall into the hand of man." 1 Chron. 21 : 13. 

The power of Jehovah cannot extend where his love 
does not, for that would prove the latter to be but finite. 
It, then, can act on his creatures only as directed by 
love. It can inflict such suffering only as love approves 



15 

of as conducive to its own ends. The Scriptures abund- 
antly sustain this view. " Also unto thee, O Lord, be- 
longeth mercy ; for thou render est to every man according 
to his work." Ps. 62: 12. 

If, then, God's love is always to continue with man, 
it will never consent that he be given over to endless 
sinning and suffering — suffering that can yield him no 
benefit. And if his love continue not with us, he must 
necessarily undergo a change. But God is unchange- 
able. "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him ? 
and what his soul desireth even that he doeth." Job 
23 : 13. " For I am the Lord, I change not." Mai. 3 : . 
6. " Every good gift and every perfect gift is from 
above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with 
whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." 
Jas. 1: 17. God is a being of absolute perfection; a 
change in him is impossible. He loves all mankind 
now. He will love them to all eternity ; and desire and 
design their happiness to all eternity. For he knows no 
change. A failure would be God's failure, and the 
result is atheism and the annihilation of every soul of 
man ! But God will not fail, and man will be saved. 

III. The Holiness of God. God is holy. " Ye 
shall be holy ; for I the Lord your God am holy." Lev. 
19 : 2. God's holiness in principle is opposed to sin; 
it ever must be. Two principles opposed to each other, 
their warfare can not be an eternal one. The stronger 
will finally overcome and destroy the other. It will 
finally become all one thing, or all the other. It is an 
irrepressible conflict, that will result in the victory of 
one, and the destruction of the other. Give these two 
principles equal power, the conflict would then be an 
eternal one, and the universe divided between God and 
the devil, neither a victor, both equal, and virtually two 
Gods ; and the result, eternal confusion. 

But which is the stronger an essential attribute of 
the Most High, or that which is incidental to man's 



16 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

existence, came into existence "by man," and since 
man ? Is sin every way as absolute and eternal, as a 
principle, as holiness — God's holiness — which is absolute 
and eternal f Consent that it is the weaker, and ydu 
yield the argument. Sin will be destroyed, and Divine 
Holiness will be victorious. The Scriptures, at least, 
have not left this question in doubt. 

" Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 
holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, 
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting 
righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint 
the Most Holy." Dan. 9 : 24. 

" And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name 
Jesus : for he shall save his people from their sins." Matt. 1 : 21. 

" The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, 
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world !" 
Jno. 1 : 29. 

" He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth 
from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifest- 
ed, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 1 Jno. 3 : 8. 

Seventy prophetic weeks are determined for the 
establishment of that mission that shall culminate in the 
end of sin; in which Christ is to save his people from 
their sins, take away the sin of the world, and destroy the 
works of the devil, which is sin. [Time expired.] 

MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST REJOINDER. 

Messes. Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen :* 
Duly appreciating, as I trust, the very great importance 
of the question now before us, and most fully recipro- 
cating the kind personal regards and strong desires for 
an honorable and profitable discussion, expressed in the 
very able address of my worthy opponent, to which you 
have just listened, I cheerfully assume the position of 
respondent upon the proposition now under considera- 
tion. I also congratulate myself, the audience, and 



*For the sake of brevity, the formal opening address, except to the modera- 
tors, will he hereafter omitted. — Reporter. 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST REJOINDER. 17 

especially my Universalist friends, that I meet in Elder 
Hughes the man who is now generally conceded to be 
the ablest champion in the ranks of Universalism in the 
"West. He stands before you, as I understand, the 
veteran hero of nearly forty well fought polemical con- 
tests. He has broken theological lances with some who 
are acknowledged to be among the ablest debaters in 
the nation. So that the cause he defends can not pos- 
sibly lose anything in his hands for lack of large and 
varied experience, the most thorough preparation, en- 
tire familiarity with the tactics of debate, united with 
an attractive eloquence. Therefore if he shall be found 
to be weak at all in this discussion, we will be com- 
pelled to attribute it to the inherent weakness of his 
cause. 

With me it is entirely different, as I have limited 
experience as a disputant, this being my second effort 
of this kind upon the subjects now before us, and also 
because I am now laboring under the disadvantage of a 
throat affection, caused by recent excessive labor, and a 
severe cold. Yet, confident in the immutability of the 
truth, I enter fearlessly upon this discussion, trusting in 
the name and blessing of the Master. 

Before proceeding to notice the opening speech of my 
opponent, there are a few other considerations to which 
I desire to invite your attention. 

I. The Safe Ground. I wish to enter the fol- 
lowing demurrer against my friend's proposition and 
reasoning, and against the efforts of his denomination : 
Universalism has now been preached in this country for 
about a century, long enough to bear ripened fruits, — it 
has had time sufficient for its special and general effects 
to have become apparent. Now, if I admit that the 
average Universalist of to-day is as moral, as devout, 
and as intelligent as the average orthodox Christian, I 
suppose that is all that my opponent can reasonably de- 
mand, and probably more than the popular verdict will 



18 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

sustain. If this be true, it follows that should we 
orthodox Christians embrace the brother's theory, it 
would not tend to make us any better than we are. But 
I think you will agree with me that, unless Universal- 
ism makes men better in this world, or adds to their 
happiness in the future world — unless it does something 
in this regard over and beyond what is accomplished by 
the preaching of the orthodox faith, it is, to say the 
least, a useless system, offering no real benefit to man- 
kind. I think I know the answer that my brother will 
make to this objection, but it will not avail him to pre- 
sent it, for there is no logic superior to the logic of facts 
and of experience ; and it will be in vain for him to soar 
off into vague flights of sentimentalism concerning the 
love of God, our love to him, and our fear of punish- 
ment, as is often indulged in by our Universalist friends. 
His proposition, I affirm, can claim no possible superi- 
ority for its results in this world, nor can it offer any 
superior inducements, in its favor, for the world to 
come. For if Universalism should by any chance 
prove true, those who do not believe it are just as cer- 
tain to be saved as though they held the theory. This 
will be true, no odds which of the hypotheses held by 
different schools of Universalists, we should adopt, — 
whether that all men are made equally happy and holy 
at death, or that this will happen at a future resurrec- 
tion, or that all men will finally become obedient, and 
so be restored, or that all will start at death on an 
upward course. On either of the first two hypotheses, 
the future of the Christian is equal to that of the un- 
regenerate : on either of the latter it is superior. I pre- 
sume my opponent holds to one or the other of the lat- 
ter hypotheses — perhaps to a combination of the two. 
If, therefore, he should happen to be right in this con- 
troversy, and I wrong, my wrong can not possibly harm 
me or others, either in this world or in that to come. It 
can only tend to throw additional restraints upon our 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST REJOINDER. 19 

carnal and sinful propensities. But if, on the contrary, 
I am right and he is wrong, as I expect to prove con- 
clusively in this debate, then what a fearful responsibil- 
ity he assumes in teaching men that which does not 
benefit them in any true sense in time, and may send 
them to perdition for all eternity ! I confess I do not 
envy him his task ; although it may call forth the smiles 
and applause of the unregenerate lovers of sinful and 
sensual indulgences. Why, then, labor to strip the law 
of God of its terrors, as Universalists do in their dis- 
cussions, their preaching, and their writings ? Who 
ever "trembled" under their preaching at a "judgment 
to come," or at the " terror of the Lord ? " It would 
be infinitely better to preach the necessity of obedience 
to the gospel than to be building up a system of nega- 
tion like theirs. This demurrer I number rebutting 
argument No. 1. We believe that Universalists them- 
selves are talking of a " New Departure" We are 
thankful. The truth is, as I have already hinted, the 
preaching of this doctrine of Universalism is, at best, 
useless. I may illustrate this by the circumstance of the 
Universalist preacher who occupied a Friends' meeting 
house. At the close of his sermon, he said he would 
not intrude himself, but if the friends desired he would 
preach for them again. No one responded for some 
time. At length an old Friend arose, and said : " I 
have been thinking that if thy doctrine be true, we 
don't need thee ; and if thy doctrine be false, we don't 
want thee. Thee can be excused ! " 

II. Future Probation. I congratulate myself 
and the audience that our Universalist brethren have 
progressed very much, and that in the right direction. 
The theories of Murray, Ballou, and others, formerly 
arrogantly defended, are now no longer taught by them. 
The dogmas of flesh sin only, of conscience punishment 
only, of equal happiness at death to all men, and such 
like positions, are among the things that were, but are 



20 FIRST PROPOSITION, 

not now taught by leading Universalists ; my opponent 
repudiates them. Said Mr. Fishback, formerly a prom- 
inent Universalist preacher, to me, "Alexander Hall 
killed fogy Universalisni." Well, I presume he had 
help in that work ; but it is sufficient for our purpose 
that it is dead. 

My opponent and his co-laborers now boldly admit 
future punishment, and that of the spirit when it has 
left the body ; indeed they are somewhat skeptical as to 
the resurrection of the body. They now admit that 
this future punishment may be of very great duration. 
One of them said in my hearing that, for aught he 
knew, it might continue for millions of years ; but that 
all would be made finally holy and happy. Elder B. F„ 
Snook, of the Universalist Church, affirmed this in the 
Agricola debate. If my opponent should question this 
matter, I cite him to King and Hobbs' debate, p. 159 ; 
to Manford and Sweeney's debate, p. 127 ; Thayer's 
Theology, p. 228 ; Capen in the New Covenant, October, 
1874 ; Hanson, in Rich Man and Lazarus, p. 6 ; and 
John Hughes, in Manford/ s Magazine, September, 1874, 
p. 391. 

I always like to agree with my opponent as far as 
possible, and to part company only when we must. I 
am glad, therefore, that my brother and I agree that 
the Scriptures are the final appeal on this question, that 
all those who die righteous will be happy, and that those 
who die in their sins will suffer punishment after death, 
Now, he must affirm either that all those who disobey 
the gospel in this world will obey it in the next, or else 
that they will be finally saved without such obedience. 
I deny both of these statements ; he must present the 
proof. I do not like to fire at long range at an oppo- 
nent, but to grapple in close conflict, and clearly inside 
of the circle of disputed ground, and since it is a mark 
of weakness and cowardice to skulk in the twilight, to 
cover one's self in the thickets of doubt and obscurity, 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST REJOINDER. 21 

instead of coming out into the open field, I trust there 
will be no hiding behind the obscure and the doubtful 
in this debate, no dragging in of foreign questions. 
There are questions confessedly upon which neither my 
brother, myself, nor the learned of the religious world 
can do much more than speculate; there are ways of 
Providence beyond our ken ; there are passages of Scrip- 
ture of acknowledged difficulty of interpretation ; there 
are classes of men, as the antediluvians, the heathen, 
idiots, etc., whose exact status in God's moral govern- 
ment we may not, because of our finite minds not being 
able to fathom the purposes of the Infinite, be able 
clearly to determine. But the Bible addresses itself to 
those who may understand their duty and do it. In 
this is found the measure of man's accountability. In 
the light of this book some die righteous and some die 
unrighteous, and some of these are so clearly known 
that my brother and I cannot differ in our identification 
of them. Concerning the certainly righteous we are 
agreed that they will be happy after death ; concerning 
the certainly wicked, we differ as to their final destiny. 
It is concerning these, and not tlie doubtful, that the con- 
troversy lies. This proposition is, therefore, the con- 
verse of the second proposition, in which I am to affirm 
that those who " die in willful disobedience to the gospel 
will suffer endless punishment." Let him save these, 
under this proposition, and I will concede all the rest. 
Let us not spend time, then, upon the heathen, the 
semi-righteous, the mistaken pious, etc.; nor yet upon 
why God has made us thus, nor upon kindred questions ; 
but let us rather seek to learn what God has said shall 
be the destiny of those who die willfully rebellious 
against his law. If my brother will prove the salva- 
tion of these worst characters, that will end this con- 
troversy. 

J rest upon the Saviour's commission to "Go into all 
the world and preach the gospel to every creature/' for 



22 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

• 

my * authority for preaching the gospel in this world. 
Will my opponent quote from the Scriptures a commis- 
sion for any one to preach the gospel to anybody in the 
next world f Perhaps we shall be cited to 1 Peter 4 : 
6, and 3: 19-20: 

" For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are 
dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but 
live according to God in the spirit." 

" By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison : 
Avhich sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of 
God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, 
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." 

But I think it will be a difficult matter for him to 
find a commission there. - Let him try it there or else- 
where, and I will endeavor to be with him. 

Again, I press upon my opponent the import of the 
word "final" in his proposition. Since my friend ex- 
tends probation into the future world, if I should admit 
that all would become obedient and happy there, how 
will he prove that that will be the final or last condition 
of all men ? If probation extends there, as Mr. Han- 
son, in " Rich Man and Lazarus," p. 6, claims, may not 
men sin and fall there as well as here ? By what word 
will he prove the contrary? Will it be "eternal," 
u everlasting," u forever," " aionios" " olam" or what 
word will it be? We are curious to know his argu- 
ment here, and hope that he will show his position, as 
his argument here may help us on our second proposi- 
tion ! We emphasize our denial upon this word "final/ 9 
and warn him that we shall press him for his line of 
proofs upon this point. We shall see what he will do 
with it. Will he ignore it ? We shall see. We won't 
let him. Let him remember what he has just said, 
that "no Scripture is relevant in this discussion that 
does not bear on this final state." We want that re- 
membered. 

Since, then, my opponent's proposition involves in 
uncertainty even the salvation of the righteous, by his 



MR. caepenter's fiest rejoinder. 23 

future probation doctrine, we offer this unavoidable but 
alarming deduction, as our second demurrer, or negative 
argument No. 2. 

III. Infinite Consequences attach to Fi- 
nite Causes. Universalists are accustomed to com- 
plain that the doctrine we hold affixes infinite conse- 
quences to finite actions, and dooms men to endless woe 
for the sins of this short life. In this connection we 
have heard much of the justice or injustice of such a 
God, etc. But I now proceed to show that my brother's 
position logically affirms infinite consequences as attach- 
ing to our finite actions here. He, too, argues for a 
difference in the future world, favorable to those who 
have been righteous in this ; a*nd we shall probably be 
treated to some rhetoric upon the " stars that differ in 
glory," etc., before this debate is over. But to be more 
specific and to illustrate it so that you may all under- 
stand it : Suppose A and B to have been born about the 
same time, to have enjoyed equal early advantages, and 
to have been, as nearly as might be, under similar in- 
fluences and conditions in this life. But by some means, 
A becomes a good man, while B falls lower and lower 
in the scale of morality. Both of them die, we may 
say at the same time, with, so to speak, one hundred 
degrees of moral worth between them. Now is it to be 
argued, even on the theory of future progression, that 
B would ever overtake A? Would there not be at 
least the difference of the one hundred degrees between 
them endlessly f But if so, even according to modern 
Universalism, God does affix infinite consequences to 
our fini^ actions. But he can still be the God of love, 
wisdom, and power, and suffer this chasm to remain 
unbridged between two of his creatures to all eternity. 
If A's condition be heaven and B's hell, then my 
friend and myself are agreed upon the existence of an 
endless heaven and an endless hell, and that men go to 
the one or the other, as they are righteous or unright- 



24 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

eous- here. We are logically, therefore, agreed as to 
the thing involved in the proposition, in degree and 
specification alone the difference lies. Nor will the old 
story of a " cup's being as full as a hogshead," serve 
here ; for the ability and capacity of B for enjoyment 
may have been originally equal, or even superior, to 
A's; and he must forever realize that he has fallen 
below A on account of his own perverseness and sin ; 
and though he may be compelled to acknowledge the 
justice of God, yet the very remorse he will feel must 
be to him an endless hell, even though there should be 
no other punishment for him to endure. 

That there have been extravagant and distorted de- 
scriptions both of heaven and hell given by revivalists 
and others, I do not deny. That the Bible uses highly 
figurative language concerning both, is apparent; but 
such strong figures are only demanded to render more 
apparent that which can not be so well expressed with- 
out them ; so that this Bible imagery means something 
after all. If such are the figures, what must the reality 
be ! I presume the " fire and brimstone " of the one 
place is quite as literal as the " gold-paved streets " and 
" pearly gates " of the other. My opponent's proposi- 
tion involves the idea that all men will become finally 
holy and happy, in the sense of going to heaven and 
dwelling with God forever ; while I will deny this, and, 
by and by, affirm that the wicked can not enter heaven, 
but will be banished forever from the peaceful presence 
of God. But we have seen that my opponent's position 
affixes an endless difference between those that die in 
Christ and those that die out of Christ. This acknowl- 
edgment of his is my negative argument No. 3. 

I will now refer briefly to the arguments advanced 
by my brother in his opening speech. He introduces 
three arguments, — one based on the Nature of Man, one 
on the Nature of God, and one on the Holiness of God. 
All that he said is a part of that line of argument 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST REJOINDER. 25 

known as the argument from the Divine Attributes, 
with a little preliminary relating to the nature of man. 
But he has not yet completed this line of proof and 
reasoning, and I shall only refer to a few things in it, 
till he shall have time to finish the argument. Now, I 
admit all that he has said in his speech respecting the 
attributes of God, — the love of God, the justice and 
holiness of God. I admit all that has been said about 
them, except his deductions, his " therefores." These 
I do not admit, and these it is his duty, if he desires to 
maintain his proposition, to prove. I certainly endorse 
all the Scriptures he has quoted ; but it is the interpreta- 
tion of them on which we shall disagree; and I shall 
have occasion hereafter to show why I dissent from his 
interpretation of them, and I wish him to remember 
that the Scriptures attribute " vengeance " and " wrath " 
as well as love and mercy to God. As to the nature of 
man, we shall, perhaps, know more about it when we 
have learned more of the laws under which the Creator 
has placed him. When we find out whether he is a free 
agent, or whether he is subject to an absolute control 
over his moral actions. He propounds certain ques- 
tions touching God's purposes in man's creation. We, 
too, shall have some questions for him to answer on 
that point, after a little. And, by the way, I wish my 
brother would throw his arguments on the attributes of 
God into a syllogistic form, so that we may measure 
them by the recognized rules of logic. And I will 
undertake to show here conclusively, by a similar line 
of argument, bearing upon the present administration 
of God in this world, that whatever with reference to 
the endless punishment of men hereafter, will make 
God cruel over there, will make him cruel here. What- 
ever, from our standpoint, is irreconcilable to his justice, 
love, and mercy there, is irreconcilable, in his existing 
administration, to his justice, love, and mercy here. So 
that the objection of my brother lies as hard against the 



26 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

present administration of God here as it can against his 
future administration. Let him, then, reduce his argu- 
ment to a syllogism, and its fallacy will be apparent. 

As to the Divine attributes, I remark that God will 
never have any new attributes. Whatever is opposed 
to his attributes now, will therefore be opposed to them 
forever ; and whatever will be opposed to his attributes 
hereafter is now opposed to them. Whatever he wills 
now will be willed by him to all eternity, since " he 
changeth not." His moral attributes, justice, holiness, 
truth, mercy, etc., since he is unchangeable, will remain 
the same forever. They will be forever what they how 
are and have forever been. Hence, whatever is oppos- 
to these attributes at any time, always has been, is now, 
and ever will be opposed to them. But sin and suffer- 
ing have been in the world for nearly six thousand 
years ; and no tongue can describe the suffering that in 
that time sin has produced among men. And yet God 
has ruled all the while ; and his attributes have remain- 
ed the same. And if sin and misery have existed upon 
the earth for so many thousand years, notwithstanding 
the mercy and goodness and justice of God, how can 
my brother be sure that they will not exist forever? 
He will have to find some other arguments than those 
he has adduced from the attributes of God to prove that 
this will not be the case. We can, therefore, find no 
argument bearing against the doctrine of future endless 
punishment from the Divine attributes, that does not 
bear equally against man's past or present condition. 
Indeed one could better prove Universal Damnation 
with Universalist logic than Universal Salvation. Let 
us see : God's purity and holiness will not permit him 
to look upon sin with allowance. (Hab. 1 : 13.) His 
justice will decide rightly; his knowledge and power 
will enable him to devise and execute; and his ven- 
geance will make the punishment terrible; and since 
all have sinned (Rom. 3 : 23.) it looks much like Uni- 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST REJOINDER. 27 

versal Damnation. The defect of the logic is similar 
to that of Universalists — the premise ivhich rests upon 
the sinner's acceptance of Christ, is omitted. Yet Mr. 
Carlton (Universalist), in his debate with Elder Moore, 
flatly denies that man's salvation depends upon any 
condition or contingency whatever. See pp. 12, 27, 34. 

But he introduces the seventy weeks of Dan. 9 : 24, 
to show that there will be an end of sin. But these 
expired in the days of Christ's personal ministry. — 
"Was there then an end of sin in his sense of the 
phrase ? Certainly not. 

My brother, with all Universalists, makes a special 
rally upon the arguments drawn from the love of God, 
the pleasure of God, the will of God, etc. But they 
forget to observe how these arguments apply with re- 
spect to the condition of man now. And we will wait 
here for our brother's further views upon this matter. 
I will now present him with three questions based upon 
the fact that sin and misery now exist in the world. I 
want to know, Do they exist in accordance with the 
will ot God ? or contrary to the will of God ? or with- 
out regard to the will of God ? I want to know from 
my brother how this is ; in other words, I want to know 
whether God is the author of sin. I think he will be 
compelled to take the first position, viz : that sin and 
misery exist in accordance with the will of God. And 
if so, perhaps he will take the position that God is the 
author of sin. "We shall see. But if he says that sin 
is contrary to the will of God, then he must admit that 
the will of God with respect to sin is not a will of 
determination, and that his will, in this sense, in respect 
to sin has been and may be defeated. And if it has 
been defeated here, my opponent certainly must admit 
that it may be defeated hereafter. [Time expired.] 



28 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — Of course it will be 
expected of me that I should pay my respects to the 
speech of the brother before I proceed. In regard to 
the number of my theological encounters, the brother 
has nearly doubled the number. He would have you 
understand that, while I. am thoroughly booked up in 
such matters, he is quite inexperienced. Well, he may 
not have had the number of set discussions that I have 
had, but his familiarity with published discussions, and 
with the arguments used, as shown in his speech, proves 
him to be fully acquainted with the subject. So I sup- 
pose that his side of the question will not suffer for 
w T ant of any ability in its advocate. If any weakness 
is shown on his side, I suppose also it will be in the 
proposition he has undertaken to defend. 

But he starts out with supreme confidence in the 
propositions he is maintaining in this discussion, and 
that is his armor of defense. I never enter into a dis- 
cussion without feeling that way myself. And I am 
sure I should not like to enter upon the defense of a 
question in the truth of which I had not the fullest 
confidence. So I suppose we are about square, so far 
as that is concerned. 

I presume he thought that my opening speech would 
keep, and so he has laid it over for " a more convenient 
season." 

I don't know what right he has to say here that he 
is orthodox. I do not understand that it is generally 
agreed that the people with whom he is connected are 
" orthodox." I think he is assuming something here in 
regard to that matter. And then I want to know what 
right he has to preach his doctrines. He says we ought 
not to preach our doctrines, because we are not doing 
any more good than other denominations. Does he say 
that the preaching of his specialty will make men better 



ME. HUGHES* SECOND SPEECH. 29 

than the preaching of the Methodists, or the Presby- 
terians, or the Baptists ? Does he say that ? And if 
he does not, why does he preach ? If he will involve 
me here in an error in this respect, why, he is in error 
too, and he ought to stop also. Now, every particle of 
real truth there is in his system, I believe we have in 
ours. All the saving, regenerating power there is in 
his system is in Universalism. So I think we have all 
the authority he has to go on, and preach the doctrines 
that we, as Universalists, maintain. 

He says that he heard one of our brethren admit 
that there might be future punishment existing, for 
aught he knew, for millions of years. But he did not 
hear me admit it. When he hears me admit it, it will 
be soon enough for him to bring it in here. 

I did not think that he would tell that old Quaker 
story. I wonder if he endorses what the Quaker said. 
The Quaker, you know, said : " If thy doctrine be 
false, we don't want thee, and if thy doctrine be true, 
we don't need thee." Then the Quaker said, " we don't 
need the truth," for that is what it means. Does my 
friend endorse that sentiment, that he don't need the 
truth f You will see he will not do it. And so he has 
not much use for the Quaker, after all. 

He says we object to infinite effects flowing from finite 
causes. And so we do. But he says the system which 
we preach involves that contradiction. And he brings 
up the case of one man that enters eternity one hun- 
dred degrees lower in the scale of moral excellence than 
another man. But are these one hundred degrees of 
difference infinite degrees, or infinite consequences ? 
That is the question. He knows they are not, and in 
the nature of things, never can be. Let him prove that 
they are. He says that I will have in favor of my 
theory the applause of all those in this audience who 
are not willing to be regenerated, and who are living in 
disobedience to God. Well, I think he has some of the 



30 FIKST PEOPOSITION. 

same kind on his side ; for I have heard men swear that 
they knew Universalism was not true ! And another 
thing, he will find more unregenerated men among 
those that agree with him than he can among those that 
agree with me. 

He says the Universal ists have progressed. I am 
glad of that, for that is a good sign. I wish he and his 
friends would progress too ! It would be a good thing 
if they would only progress out of their differences, for 
they are by no means agreed; and I believe Elder 
Clark Braden has specified about eighteen particulars 
in which they differ from one another in matters of faith 
or opinion. But then we don't teach what Murray and 
Ballou and the early Universalists taught. Now I do 
not believe it was left for John Murray and Hosea 
Ballou to discover all the truth at once. I have heard 
it said that "wise men change their minds, but fools 
never." I wonder if he has ever heard that. He says 
we admit the punishment of the spirit in the future 
world. Now I will say that I do not believe in any 
punishment of the body in the future world. Does my 
brother ? Will he answer that question ? 

But some Universalist has admitted that the wicked 
will be punished for a long time ; perhaps for a million 
of years. I think he can not show that I have admit- 
ted it. He might have, possibly, found some one to 
admit it in the days of Winchester and Murray ; but I 
do not think he will find any intelligent Universalist 
that will admit it now. But he does not want us to get 
into the thickets. I am sure I don't either. He likes to 
fight on open ground. So do I. But we will perhaps 
see how he stands on the thicket question by and by. 
But he wants me to prove that men are to be saved 
through obedience to the gospel. Now I will say that 
I believe in the salvation of men through the truth. 
And I believe, too, that the truth of God will save men, 
and will save all men. I believe that the way of sal- 



31 

vation is always open — that the Father's house is always 
open, and that the Father is always in the house to re- 
ceive and to welcome all who come to him. I believe 
he is now willing, and I believe he always will be will- 
ing to receive all those that come to him. 

I think that I heard soma kind of an allusion of my 
opponent to the condition of the heathen. I believe 
he did not want us to enter upon the discussion of the 
salvation of the heathen. But I would like him to 
come out and tell us what he thinks about the salvation 
of the heathen. I will ask him this question : Do you 
believe in the final salvation of the heathen ? Now I 
want him to answer that question. 

But he says he does not know of any commission at 
all to men to preach the gospel to any body in the 
future world. I think I can, in due time, satisfy him, 
or at least the audience, on that question. 

But he is concerned about the "final holiness and 
happiness " of men, and he wants me to tell how I am 
to prove that the "final " state of which my proposition 
speaks, is the last state of men. He wants to know 
whether it is final in the sense that there is no other 
state or condition beyond it. And he thinks if I tell 
him how I will prove that, it will help him when he 
comes to discuss his affirmative proposition. I wonder 
if he is begging for help here already ? Well, I do not 
know that I will use the word u aidnios," to do it. But 
he will find out the words I shall use by and by, and I 
will settle that matter in time to help him on his last 
proposition, at any rate. He says there have been a 
great many unguarded expressions used by revivalists 
and others on the subject of hell, and that there are 
very strong figures used in the Scriptures to describe 
future punishment ; but he does not understand these in 
their literal sense. He does not believe that the streets 
in the New Jerusalem are paved with literal gold, and 
he does not believe that there is a literal lake of fire 



32 FIEST PKOPOSITION. 

into which the wicked are thrown. But that used to be 
the orthodox faith. They used to believe that there 
was literal fire and brimstone in hell. So there has 
been some progress on his side, after all; and who 
knows, if he keeps on progressing, but that he will 
finally come to the truth, and give up the doctrine of 
an endless hell altogether ? 

He says he admits all of my first speech, except the 
deductions. Well, all I have to say to that is, that 
when the premises of that speech are admitted, the 
deductions necessarily follow. One of the premises was 
that man is free to learn and to follow the truth now, 
and my position was that he will be free to learn and to 
follow the truth forever ; and so I affirmed that there 
would be no hinderance there in the way of a man's 
salvation. And I went on to say that God wills the 
salvation of men there, for he wills it here, and what he 
wills now will be his will forever, for he changeth not. 
And his will must be accomplished ; and as he wills the 
final holiness and happiness of all men, their final holi- 
ness and happiness will be secured. 

He wants me to reconstruct my argument in the form 
of a syllogism ; but if he takes hold of my argument 
as it stands, I think he will have enough to do. Let 
him try his hand on that first, before he asks for any 
change in the form of my argument. 

He says God will have no new attributes. Very 
well. But then he seems to intimate that he has an 
attribute of vengeance. But I want to know whether 
the Bible teaches that vengeance is an attribute of God ? 
I want to know whether he thinks vengeance exists in 
God as it exists in man? The Bible says, "God is 
love;" but it does not say that he is vengeance. 
And I want him to tell us how he can found vengeance 
on love, or how it can be made to appear as an expres- 
sion of mercy? I admit that there is a sense in which 
God may be said to exercise vengeance; but I deny 



ME. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 33 

squarely that vengeance is an attribute of God, and I 
defy him to prove that it is ; and I defy him to prove 
that because God says, " Vengeance is mine/' therefore 
he is a God of vengeance. But he says that the argu- 
ment I founded on the attributes of God is not a valid 
argument, because it would prove that there can be no 
sin here, when sin does exist here ; and if it exists here, 
it may exist in the final state. But I proved that God 
made man a free agent, and I showed that this involves 
the possibility of sin, and that sin came in through the 
action of the creature, that it is incidental to his being 
here — that it came " by man " and through man, and 
that therefore God is not the author of sin. And I 
showed that God had a purpose in the creation of man, 
and I have shown that the final purpose of God with 
respect to man is that he shall be finally holy and 
happy with him forever. And this purpose of God 
involves the destruction of sin and misery in man, and 
this purpose God will ultimately fulfill. But he says it 
is the purpose of God that man should not sin in this 
life. I say it is the purpose of God that man shall be 
subject to law, and that he shall be free in his moral 
actions, which implies the possibility of sin here. — 
Hence it is said : 

"Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a 
blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, 
which I command you this day : and a curse, if ye will not obey 
the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the 
way which I command you this day." Deut. 11 : 26-28. 

He purposes to reward, even in this life, them that 

obey him, and to punish them that disobey him. But 

he has not designed this as the end of man's creation. 

There is something beyond this life, and the end which 

he had in view in our creation is the final holiness and 

happiness of the race. My friend dare not say that 

what God has designed to exist here he designs to be 

forever. He dare not say that, and he will not say it. 

And he forgets that man comes into being very low in 

3 



34 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

the scale of existence — ignorant, and therefore liable to 
sin. He forgets that the law of God was given for the 
education, direction, and salvation of men. He forgets 
that God has placed us here under a law of discipline, 
to which men must conform in order to their final sal- 
vation. And he forgets that all these things imply this 
grand end. All my argument requires is to show that 
this end will be finally attained. Now God designs 
that the acorn shall be an oak ; but he does not design 
that it shall be an oak while it is an acorn. God de- 
signs that the babe shall be a man; but he does not 
design that it shall be a man while it is a babe. So 
there is the same principle recognized in the kingdom 
of grace, for we have "first the blade, then the ear, 
after that the full corn in the ear." Mark 4 : 28. 

Having thus noticed my brother's speech, I will now 
proceed. 

IV. The Justice of God. God is a God of 
justice. " A God of truth, and without iniquity, just 
and right is he." Deut. 32 : 4. "A just God and a 
Saviour." Isa. 45 : 21. God's justice finds expression 
in his perfect law. " The law of the Lord is perfect, 
converting the soul." Ps. 19:7. " Love is the fulfill- 
ing of the law." Rom. 13 : 10. 

" Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is 
the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two command- 
ments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt. 22 : 37-40. 

The requirement of God's perfect law finds its end in 
the holiness of man. For he who loves God and his 
fellow man is " born of God." 1 Jno. 4:7. " Has 
passed from death unto life." 1 Jno. 3 : 14. Is holy, 
therefore happy; and God's justice is satisfied in the 
only possible way. "Now the end of the command- 
ment is charity (love) out of a pure heart, and of a 
good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." 1 Tim. 1 : 5. 



SECOND SPEECH. 35 

This is its end, or the object in giving the command- 
ment. 

Divine justice can not be satisfied with the endless 
injustice of .man. Justice requires of man — of man 
universally — his entire conformity to its righteous re- 
quirements, now and ever. The time will never come, 
here or hereafter, when man will not be under obliga- 
tion, and justice require him to love God with all his 
heart; and he, therefore, have the ability to do so. 
God's justice is eternal; man's obligation eternal; and 
his ability and freedom to obey the law must be equally 
so. Nor will anything short of his entire conformity 
ever satisfy the claims of justice or the righteous de- 
mands of the law of the Most High. His law is the 
law of eternal justice, and demands of all supreme 
love to God, and universal love to man. 

Will the law — the immutable law of God- — be ful- 
filled? If not, then justice never will be satisfied. 
Then the law of God is not perfect, and never will be 
fulfilled. Then the solemn asseveration of Jesus is un- 
true, when he says : " For verily, I say unto you, till 
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no 
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5 : 18. 

I know that it has been taught that Divine Justice is 
to be satisfied with the infliction of an endless penalty 
on the violation of God's law. Then justice requires 
something contrary to the demands of God's law. Yea, 
it demands something contrary to its own requirements. 
For they both require obedience. And they then stul- 
tify themselves, and are contrary one to the other. But 
God's justice does not require the endless punishment 
of the sinner. For justice can only demand a penalty 
in proportion to the guilt of the offender ; and that pun- 
ishment to enforce obedience to the requirements of 
God's law. Its penalties are for the good of the of- 
fender. The hand with which justice inflicts is guided 
by mercy. " Justice and judgment are the habitations 



36 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

of thy thrbne ; mercy and truth go before thy face.' 7 
Ps. 89 : 14. 

" That God which ever lives and loves, 
One God, one law, one element, 
And one far off divine event, 
To which the whole creation moves.' 7 

V. The Paternity of God. God is the Father 
of all mankind. " Have we not all one Father f hath 
not one God created us?" Mai. 2 : 10. " One God and 
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in 
you all." Eph. 4: 6. God has constituted himself 
our Father by creating us in his own image, " So God 
created man in his own image." Gen. 1:27. It is by 
virtue of this image, or likeness, that we are the chil- 
dren of God. Hence, " God is the Father of spirits." 
Heb. 12 : 9. Paul teaches that we are the offspring of 
God. 

" For in him we live, and move, and have our being ; as certain 
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to 
think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven 
by art and man's device." Acts 17 : 28, 29. 

The paternal relation is a real one. Not an artificial 
relation that can be assumed and laid aside at pleasure. 
It is a tie of nature. The parent can not dissolve the 
relationship existing between himself and his child, let 
that child become what it will. The wandering, sinful, 
miserable prodigal could look back to a father and a 
father's house. It can not be said that man sinned ; lost 
the divine image, and severed the relationship existing 
between God and himself. For four thousand years 
after the creation of man, it was declared that " men 
are made after the similitude of God." James 3 : 9. 
Sin can not destroy this relationship. It is the privi- 
lege of all men to say, " Our Father who art in heaven." 
Matt. 6:9. God addresses the Jews at one time as 
"backsliding children." Jer. 3: 14. Why call them 
children if sin had destroyed that relation ? 



ME. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 37 

But I shall be told that some are called " the children 
of the devil " in contradistinction to the children of 
God. I answer, the phrases thus used are descriptive 
of character, and not of relationship. Some are called 
the children, or "Sons of thunder." Mark 3 : 17. 
« Children of Belial." Deut. 13 : 13. " Children of 
this world." Lu. 16:8. " Children of disobedience." 
Eph. 2:2. Not because they are the offspring of the 
things named, but because they have some characteristic 
quality resembling them. And so when men are called 
the " children of the devil," it is because of their evil 
characters, and not that they are really the offspring 
of an evil angel. If they are, let them " honor their 
parent." For to him would their allegiance be due. 
And when men are called the " children of God," in 
contradistinction to wicked men, it is because they re- 
semble him in some good degree in character. So the 
Saviour commands : 

" Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them 
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and 
persecute you : that ye may be the children of your Father which 
is in heaven : for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the 
good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt. 5: 
44, 45. 

The meaning is, that being the children of God, we 
should imitate him in character. 

God's paternal love resembles that of the good earth- 
ly parent for his children, only infinitely greater, and 
far more enduring. 

" Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will 
give him a stone ? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent ? 
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your chil- 
dren, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give 
good things to them that ask him ? " Matt. 7 : 9-11. 

" But Zion said, the Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath 
forgotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she 
should not have compassion on the son of her womb ? yea, they may 
forget, yet will I not forget thee." Isa. 49 : 14, 15. 

The good earthly parent will not cast 4 off his child 
forever. Will God, whose love is infinitely greater? 



38 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

An enlightened, Christian parent never cherishes angry, 
revengeful, retaliatory feelings towards his children. 
"Will God, the Father of us all ? Surely the infinite 
and eternal Father will take care of all his children. 

" I know not where his islands lift 
Their fronded palms in air ; 
I only know I cannot drift 
Beyond his love and care." 

Now, as I have but a few moments left before the 
close of my half hour, I will reply to one question of 
the brother. He introduces his trilemma here, and 
wants me to say whether I believe that God is the au- 
thor of sin. I will say to him that God is not the 
author of sin, and I hope that will be definite enough. 
But I say that sin did not come in by any " thwarting " 
of the purposes of God, or by any defect of his plans. 
We read, Ps. 76 : 10: " Surely the wrath of man shall 
praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou re- 
strain." Now I believe his power is sufficient to over- 
rule sin, and to make it praise him ; and I believe that 
he will so control it that man's condition will be here- 
after as good as if sin had never had an existence. For 
God will renew the earth in righteousness, and by his 
wisdom, grace, and love, all working to this one grand 
end, will make all things contribute to his ultimate 
praise forevermore. [Time expired.] 

MR. CARPENTER'S SECOND REJOINDER. 

Messes. Moderators : — I confess myself gratified 
at the progress of the discussion thus far, for I think it 
is apparent that my brother has as yet advanced noth- 
ing that has not been repeatedly met by others and 
may be easily refuted. I believe we have authority for 
sometimes making the last first and the first last; and 
so I will commence just where the brother left off, 
in my review of the arguments he has made. 

He says tnat God is not the author of sin. Very 



MR. CARPENTER'S SECOND REJOINDER. 39 

well; but we have abundant proofs that that position 
has been taken by Universalists, and that it logically 
follows from the positions they have assumed. Yet I 
will not hold my opponent responsible for the positions 
of his brethren; but I ask him now, if God is not the 
author of sin, who brought sin into the world? He 
says God's purposes are not thwarted by its intro- 
duction. Then they must have included sin. 

Mr. Hughes : — " By one man sin entered into the 
world, and death by sin." 

Mr. Carpenter: — Then I ask him another ques- 
tion : " Did he bring sin into the world, according to 
the will of God, or against the will of God, or without 
regard to the will of God?" 

Mr. Hughes : — I think I answered that sufficiently 
in my speech. 

[Objection was here made to catechetical inquiries on 
the part of the disputants, and it was determined out of 
order by the Moderators.] 

Mr. Carpenter : — My brother thinks his system 
contains all the saving truth that mine does. Of this 
we can judge better when we have called him out on 
the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, the Atonement, the 
Resurrection, obedience to the gospel commands, etc. 

But he has introduced his fifth argument based on 
God as our Father ; that, therefore, he has a common 
interest in all his children, and all will be saved. I 
do not deny that as the Creator, he is the Father of all. 
But he admits that men make themselves by character 
the children of the devil, and they cannot be morally the 
children of God and the children of the devil at the 
same time. And if they are the children of the devil, 
they must share their father's punishment, as they par- 
take of his sin. I think that argument is conclusive, 
and meets his argument on the fatherhood of God. 
But, by the way, since Bro. Hughes says men are chil- 
dren of God, children of the devil, etc., because of a 



40 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

resemblance of character, and since God is a real, not an 
imaginary being, and can therefore be resembled; does 
Bro. Hughes concede as much for the devil? Is he, 
after all, progressing to orthodoxy as to a real, personal 
devil ? or does he think these " children of the devil " 
resemble themselves ! 

His fourth argument was on the justice of God. 
Well, I believe that God is just; and, therefore, I be- 
lieve that as a God rewarding every man according to 
his works, he will punish the finally sinful. On this 
question, at least, I am orthodox, and so admitted. 

He introduced the illustration of the acorn. " God 
designs," we are told, "that the acorn should become 
an oak, but not while it is an acorn. And so God de- 
signs that men shall be holy and happy, but not in this 
life." Now, I would like him to be explicit here. 
Does he mean to say that God does not will that men 
should be holy now f Does he say that f And then, I 
have known acorns to be frost-bitten, and to never 
become oaks at all ! If there is anything in the illus- 
tration, I take it, it is against the brother's proposition ; 
for there may be frost-bitten men as well as frost- 
bitten acorns. And so his own illustration is against 
him. And i ask him here, upon his theory, why did 
God bring men into the world to sin ? He knew they 
would sin ; he made it possible for them to sin ; and he 
could, according to my brother's theory, have prevented 
their sinning. Why then, did he not do it? Let us 
have some light here, my brother. 

This is a proper place to notice my opponent's 
argument upon the nature of man. 

Man's nature may not be so good after all. Let us 
see. He was made upright, pronounced good and very 
good, had God for his daily companion, placed in the 
garden of delights, and, if my brother's theory be cor- 
rect, had no devil, no tempter but his own innate sin- 
fulness to lead him astray ; yet he fell and lost Eden 



41 

and all those happy delights, went away from God in- 
stead of being attracted to him ; and brother Hughes 
thinks our natures will not be changed at death. Facts 
are stubborn things, but the facts in man's history, even 
according to my brother's former positions, entirely 
refute his argument built upon the nature of man. Ah ! 
there is nothing in man to secure salvation ; it must be 
by the merits of Christ's blood secured to us by a full 
and hearty obedience to the gospel. 

But we may be told that it was the flesh that made 
man sinful. This would do for the old school Univer- 
salists, who confine sin and punishment to the flesh and 
to this world, claiming entire freedom from both for 
the spirit so soon as it has left the body. But this 
theory my brother does not endorse, but admits that it 
is the spirit that sins and will suffer, even in the other 
world. Again, he claims that God causes man to 
have this earthly and fleshly experience that he may 
develop him. But we ask, how, then, will the infants 
who die — about one-half of the race — be developed, 
since he denies, even to them, a resurrection of the 
body ? Truly the legs of the lame are unequal ! 

Then he brings up the question of the divine ven- 
geance. I believe I did say it is an attribute of God. 
Now we have these passages : " To me belongeth ven- 
geance and recompense." Deut. 32 : 35 ; and Paul says, 
Kom. 12: 19: 

" Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place 
unto wrath : for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, 
saith the Lord." 

Vengeance belongeth exclusively to God; mark that. 
But he quotes, " God is love," and you will notice how 
he emphasized the copula : " God is love." Well, I 
may read also, " God is a consuming fire," so that if 
he can show from his reading that " God is love," I can 
show from mine that he " is a consuming fire." (Heb. 
12 : 29.) I will put the one against the other here, and 



42 FIEST PEOPOSITION. 

let it stand. He fears to put his assumptions into logical, 
or syllogistic form ; he knows full well that their falsity- 
would then be made fully apparent. 

He speaks of my admitting his premises, and says 
that if I admit them, then the deductions follow. I 
admitted what he said about the attributes of God, that 
he is a God of love, of mercy, and of justice, and I 
admitted the Scriptures he quoted ; but I did not admit 
his inferences. Please notice that for the present. We 
shall have occasion to refer to his arguments on these 
points again. 

But he refers to the heathen. But, as I have shown, 
our proposition has nothing to do with the heathen ; it 
refers only to those " who die in willful disobedience to 
the gospel." Do the heathen do this ? Why does he 
want us to drag in outside issues ? I am frank to say 
that I am here to discuss the question before us, and not 
to go after every irrelevant question that my brother 
may wish to bring in. Let us keep to the question, 
Bro. Hughes. 

As to the number of his discussions, I will remark, I 
had seen his debate with Bro. Walden, at Numa, Iowa, 
numbered as the twenty-seventh, and I supposed that 
the parties speaking of it were informed on the subject, 
and I knew that he had held several since ; hence my 
remark. 

In relation to the supposed parties entering the other 
world with one hundred degrees of moral difference 
between them, he says that he objects to infinite conse- 
quences being attached to finite actions, and he wants to 
know if these degrees of difference are infinite degrees. 
I say, yes ; infinite in duration ; the thing under consid- 
eration, according to the logic in the case, for there can 
never be a time when they will not be at least the one 
hundred degrees apart. The last we knew of them, 
they were that far apart, and the distance between them 
then was widening [the speaker illustrating the diver- 



ME. CARPENTER'S SECOND REJOINDER. 43 

gence by spreading his hands], and we can see no 
reason for supposing that they will ever come together. 
The presumption is that they will get farther apart. 
The difference between them, then, will be an eternal, 
an infinite difference; an eternal difference and an infinite 
difference, in this sense, are the same. 

But he says the attributes of God are infinite. To 
that we do not object ; but we do object to the deduc- 
tions and assumptions he draws from those attributes. 
Now, practically, to answer one of his arguments from 
the attributes of God, is to answer them all. We will, 
therefore, take up the argument of the brother on the 
will of God, and proceed to answer it. His position is 
that the will of God is a will of determination, and that 
it must be accomplished, and that he wills the salvation 
of all men, therefore all men must be saved. 

We must make a proper discrimination between 
God's will of pleasure or desire, and his will of deter- 
mination or decree, when these terms are used distinct- 
ively. The former, as far as it pertains to man's well- 
being, God had determined to make dependent upon 
man for its fulfillment. This is as much a decree of his 
as that he would offer mercy. He offers mercy, and 
desires man to accept; but he has decreed that this 
shall be left to the moral agency of man to determine. 
Not so in matters where the desire and determination 
are wholly with God and do not affect man's agency, or 
where this is not consulted. Here his will is uncon- 
ditionally accomplished ; but only conditionally accom- 
plished where human agency is involved. An over- 
sight in this matter — the want of proper discrimination 
here — is the rock on which Universalism founders, and 
on which the brother's argument will be wrecked. 

Our opponent's argument, logically stated, would be 
this: 

(1) God's will must in every instance be fully ac- 
complished ; 



44 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

(2) God wills the final holiness and happiness of all 
mankind ; 

(3) Therefore all men will be finally holy and hap- 

py- 

But we will frame another syllogism : 

(1) God's will must be, in every instance, accom- 
plished. 

(2) God wills that all men should be righteous — 
should obey the gospel, now ; 

(3) Therefore all men are righteous, or obedient, 
now. 

But the facts are against this logic. My brother 
may say, " So much the worse for the fads." I say, 
so much the worse for his logic. 

God commands all men everywhere to repent. He 
forbids murder, theft, profanity, adultery, lying, etc.,. 
etc. But these things are practiced with fearful fre- 
quency, notwithstanding God's repeated prohibition. 
Men do not obey the gospel now, and they do commit 
palpable violations of Divine law as uttered in God's 
commands. Now we submit the following trilemma: 
These commands, thus violated, are the expressions of 
God's will; or they are contrary to his will; or they 
have no relation to his will. Which of the three state- 
ments will my brother accept? He is compelled to 
accept the first; he dare not take either of the others. 
This indefinite talk about the origin of sin looks like 
an attempt to evade the true issue here. 

But here is another trilemma : These violations are 
according to the will of God, (which makes the will of 
God as expressed in the command contrary to his real 
will.) Or they are contrary to the will of God (and 
thus God's will is contravened by human agency.) Or 
they are ivithout regard to his will (which will not be 
claimed.) How is it, brother Hughes ? 

But he introduces the " corn " illustration. He can 
not say that God does not will that all men should be 



45 

saved now ; for God does will that all men should obey 
the gospel even now. " Now commandeth he all men 
everywhere to repent." Acts 17: 30. "Now is the 
accepted time," etc. 2 Cor. 6:2. 

But let us state the argument here formally, accor- 
ding to my brother's logic. 

(1.) God wills that all men should obey the gospel 
now. 

(2.) But some men do not obey the gospel now; 

(3.) Therefore, all men will be saved ! 

But that is not the logical conclusion from the prem- 
ises, and the brother's deduction is not legitimate. 
The actions of those who obey not the gospel must be, 
as we affirm, contrary to the will of God in this sense, 
and, therefore, the will of God can be contravened. To 
say that the "will of God is that the corn should be 
planted in the spring and ripen in the fall ; and that so 
men will ripen into full obedience in the future world," 
does not meet the difficulty — the cases are not parallel. 
God does not will ripened corn in the spring ; but he 
does will, as expressed by his commandments, that all 
men should now be holy. '' Do not kill " expresses his 
will now and in this world, not in the next. But men do 
kill contrary to God's will of desire or pleasure, as ex- 
pressed in his commands. This logic we believe to be 
irrefutable. 

But let us refer to the Scriptures, and quote some 
passages often used in this controversy, and which come 
legitimately into the argument upon the Divine attri- 
butes, expressing the Will, Purpose, or Counsel of God, 
as usually argued by Universalists. I quote as fol- 
lows: 

" Kemember the former things of old : for I am God, and there is 
none else : I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end 
from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not 
yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my 
pleasure : calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that exe- 
cuteth my counsel from a far country : yea, I have spoken it, I will 



46 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

also bring it to pass ; I have purposed it, I will also do it." Isa. 
46:9-11 

" That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the 
west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is 
none else. I form the light and create darkness : I make peace, and 
create evil : I the Lord do all these things." Isa., 45: 6-7. 

" But he is in one mind, and who can turn him ? and what his 
soul desireth, even that he doeth." Job 23 : 13. 

The following Scripture shows that this language is 
not to be applied universally to the pleasure of God. 
Before Universalists can make these texts avail them 
they must show that the " all things " here relate to the 
salvation of all men, and that the counsel, or pleasure, 
'is used in an absolute sense; neither of which can be 
done. I quote John 6 : 37-40. 

" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that 
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from 
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which- 
he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again 
at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every 
one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlast- 
ing life : and I will raise him up at the last day." 

But Judas went to his own place. Acts 1 : 25. Psa. 

2:8. 

" Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheri- 
tance, and the uttermost parts of the earth- for thy possession." 

Of course the world rightfully belongs to Christ ; but 
it is in rebellion against him. 1 Tim. 2 : 3-6. 

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Sa- 
viour ; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge 
of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God 
and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for all, 
to be testified in due time." 

But some will not come to Christ nor accept the ran- 
som at his hands ; all do not " come to the knowledge 
of the truth." Mark, too, that we have shown that 
this " will " is now. 

The following scriptures will show the import of such 
declarations when dependent upon man's agency : I 
quote Psa. 5 : 4. 



ME. CARPENTER^ SECOND REJOINDER. 47 

" For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness : nei- 
ther shall evil dwell with thee." 

But wickedness does exist contrary to the will and 

pleasure of God. 1 Cor. 10 : 5. 

"But with many of them (the ancient Israelites) God was not 



God, therefore, has displeasure at sin. 1 Thes. 4: 
3-7. 

" For this is the will of God, even your sanctification that ye should 
abstain from fornication : that every one of you should know how 
to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor ; not in the lust of 
concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God : that no 
man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter : because that 
the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you 
and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but 
unto holiness." 

But all men do not conform to this will, therefore his 
will in this respect is not absolute. Matt. 6 : 10. 
" Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." 

But his will is not done in earth as it is in heaven. 

Luke 13 : 34. 

" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest 
them that are sent unto thee ; how often would I have gathered thy 
children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, 
and ye would not ! " 

The Saviour willed it, but he says "ye would not." 
Ezek. 33: 11. 

" Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure 
in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turft from his way and 
live : turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways : for why will ye die, O 
house of Israel ? " 

But the " wicked " do die, and whether it be spiritual 
or temporal death, it is contrary to the will of God. 
Psa. 103: 17-19. 

" But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting 
upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's chil- 
dren ; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his 
commandments to do them. The Lord hath prepared his throne in 
the heavens ; and his kingdom ruleth over all. 

Observe now that it is those that " keep his covenant 
and remember his commandments to do them," who 



48 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

are heirs of his righteousness and the recipients of his 
mercy; none others. My brother's doctrine, then, 
founded upon the absolute will and pleasure of God, 
will not stand in the light of the teachings of the Holy 
Scriptures. 

But he introduces an argument founded on the love, 
mercy, goodness, and justice of God. I would like to 
know why Universalists talk about the mercy of God 
and the grace of God. I deny that their system has 
any grace or mercy in it. Their theory is one of penal 
infliction — we "pay" the full penalty of our sins ac- 
cording to them, and suffering, not Christ, is really 
their only Saviour! 

My brother is fond of poetry, and he introduces 
considerable of it into his argument. Of course I 
shall not be expected to answer that; but I shall be 
ready to answer his argument. You will please let the 
poetry go for what it is worth, and give attention to his 
proofs. Now no one denies the attributes of God. I 
teach them emphatically, and find them essential ele- 
ments in the plan of salvation. The mistake of Uni- 
versalists is this : when they have proven that God is 
good, merciful, etc., they at once conlude that all will 
therefore be saved. But the conclusion is not in the 
premise, it is clearly a non sequiter. Logically stated, 
their argument jmist take this form : 

(1) Sin and misery are incompatible with the attri- 
butes of a God of love, mercy, power, etc. 

(2) The God of the Bible has these attributes ; 

(3) Therefore sin and misery are incompatible with 
the God of the Bible. 

The fault I challenge is in the major premise, which 
is false. Nor will it change the matter if the word 
endless be prefixed to "sin and misery." In proof 
of which we offer the following : 

(1) That which is compatible with a changeless God 
may co-exist with him endlessly. 



49 

(2) Sin and misery are now compatible with the 
God of the Bible, a changeless God ; 

(3) Therefore sin and misery may co-exist with him 
endlessly. 

But no logic can prove that that which may exist 
must cease; and we have shown that sin and misery 
may co-exist endlessly with God. This thing, there- 
fore, of simply introducing Scriptures to prove that 
God is love, mercy, justice, etc., in this argument, is 
what logicians call ignoratio elenehi — a misapprehen- 
sion of the question in debate. No body denies that 
God possesses these attributes ; but we deny the infer- 
ences which Universalists draw from them. 

Before any incongruity can be established between 
God's existence in happiness while sin and misery exist 
eternally, it must be shown that God will change, since 
he now exists in happiness, notwithstanding these. But 
James says (1 : 17) that with him " is no variableness, 
neither shadow of turning." 

But it is very questionable whether it is legitimate 
for our finite minds to reason a priori upon the attri- 
butes of an infinite God ; for God says, Isa. 55 : 8-11 : 

" For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways 
my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the 
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than 
your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from 
heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and mak- 
eth it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and 
bread to the eater ; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my 
mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish 
that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent 
it." 

Epicurus, thus reasoning a priori in his work De Ira 
Dei, came to the conclusion, as many Universalists have 
done, that there is no intelligent, sentient, controlling 
God, else he would have abolished all evil. We can 
better rely on what God has said. Judging by this test, 
his mercy is not indifferent to crime, nor yet opposed 
to punishment. But his mercy and his forbearance will 
4 



50 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

be finally withdrawn from the wicked. Let me intro- 
duce some passages bearing upon this point : 

" Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God : on them 
"which fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness ; if thou continue in his 
goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Eom. 11 : 22. 

" And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and 
the sons together, saith the Lord : I will not pity, nor spare, nor have 
mercy, but destroy them." Jer. 13 : 14. 

" When the boughs thereof are withered, they shall be broken 
off: the women come, and set them on fire ; for it is a people of no 
understanding : therefore he that made them will not have mercy on 
them, and he that formed them will shew them no favor." Isa. 27 : 11. 

" Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, nei- 
ther will I have pity : and though they cry in mine ears with a loud 
voice, yet will I not hear them." Ezek. 8 : 18. 

He will not hear these men, even when they cry unto 
him. 

" For he shall have judgment without mercy, that he hath shewed 
no mercy ; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." James 2 : 13. 

I might refer also to Ps. 25: 10; Prov. 28: 18; Isa. 
55 : 6, 7 ; 1 Thes. 1 : 13 ; Eev. 14 : 10, 11, etc. 

But then my brother says that God is our Father, 
our King, and so forth. From this he argues that all 
men will be holy and happy forever. But I ask, will 
he ever be more our Father than he is now f Will he 
ever be more our King than he is now ? And yet sin 
and punishment exist now. Men rebel against God 
now ; sin and misery exist now, and, so far as my 
friend can prove, may exist forever. These facts of 
God's fatherhood and kingship add nothing, in fact or 
statement, to the argument of the brother. 

Mr. Manford rightly says : " All are not morally the 
children of God." {Manford and Sweeney's Debate, p. 
105.) And this is clear from the Scriptures. I may 
refer to Rom. 9:8; Rom. 8: 11; 2 Cor. 6: 17, 18; 
John 8 : 41-44 ; Matt, 13 : 38, and Acts 13 : 9, 10. In 
1 John 3 : 10, we have the test : 

" In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the 
devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he 
that loveth not his brother." 



MR. CARPENTER'S SECOND REJOINDER. 51 

His attempted repartee concerning the children of 
the devil " honoring their parents " was a failure and 
we let it pass. 

He referred to my remarks respecting the progress 
of Universalism, and the fruits of its preaching among 
the people. And he referred to certain remarks of 
Elder Clark Braden as to differences of views among 
the members of the Church of Christ. Now I will say 
that I know of no people that are more united in their 
views than are the people with which I am connected. 
But I will produce here some Universalist authority for 
what I have said respecting the effect of the preaching 
of Universalism. 

Mr. Fishback, who formerly preached Universalism 
in Oskaioosa, said to one of our ministerial brethren, 
" I wish some of your preachers would preach on the 
Evidences of Christianity before my audience, for 
fully one-half of them are unbelievers" And in his 
valedictory he said : " I have been preaching for you 
for five years, and have had no occasion to complain 
of my audiences, or of your treatment of me ; but I 
do not see that my preaching has made you any better 
men and women." 

In the " Occasional 'Sermon/' delivered by E. H. 
Capen, of Providence, R. I., before the General Con- 
vention of Universalists,. held in New York, Sep- 
tember, 1874, after showing the progress of their de- 
nomination, and that it had not kept pace with others, 
he says, when speaking of the nature and prevalence 
of sin : 

" Yet I fear it must be confessed that our treatment of it [sin] 
has been too often purely speculative, if not absolutely sentimental. 
With our Christian brethren of nearly every name, sin, instead of 
being an essential factor merely in a great theological problem, is a 
terrible reality, demanding for its extinction all the machinery of 
the Church, together with the efforts and prayers of individual 
believers, not less than the resources of philosophy and faith. They 
use every means at their command to produce conviction in the 



52 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

subject of it, and rouse him from the stupor that has siezed his fac- 
ulties ; and it is by no means an unimportant consideration that 
those churches which are the most successful in this direction, are 
those which are growing most rapidly in numbers and influence, and 
which exhibit generally the largest measure of the spirit that was 
in Christ. 

" Just here I believe is where we have made our grandest mis- 
take. For while we have numbered within our ranks some of the 
tenderest consciences, and some of the most vital, earnest Christians 
that the world has ever seen, yet, as a rule, we have failed to make 
those searching applications of doctrine which invariably result in 
a regenerated manhood. Not only have the clergy been too back- 
ward in pressing the matter as a practical and living issue, but the 
people have too often resented those affirmations of personal guilt, 
which require repentance and faith, before they can see the salva- 
tion of God. This is why the cause which ought to have swept the 
world ere this has halted so long that it sometimes seems almost to 
have reached a final pause. Nor can it go forward until this paraly- 
sis is cured. No matter how many dialectic victories we win, they are 
barren and worthless without the practical emphasis which makes 
the truth out of which they spring a two-edged sword, piercing to 
the very marrow of the soul. Sin is here, with all its desperate 
ugliness and potency of mischief, and it never can be cast out of our 
hearts or the world, while we weakly fold our hands and wait for 
the grace of God. The divine will must have the co-operation of 
human effort. We must fearlessly grapple with this arch-enemy of 
man and of Jesus Christ. Thus only can we demonstrate that we 
have either the sense of Christians or the spirit and power of a 
Church." — New Covenant, October 1, 1874. 

This shows that his brethren are striving after more 
zeal and efficiency, for which I am thankful. We can 
all do more in this respect. 

But he says that John Hughes has not admitted that 
there will be punishment in the other world perhaps 
for a million of years, or something to that effect. 
Now, in Manford's Magazine for September, 1874, p. 
389, there is an article from John Hughes, respecting 
the Braden-Hughes Debate, in which John Hughes 
says: 

"It is true that he can not defend endless misery successfully. 
No man can. It is indefensible. It is not a doctrine of the Bible. 
I respect him because he admits that which he regards to be the 
truth. He admits that the gospel will be preached in the future 
world to infants, imbeciles, heathens, and imperfect Christians. He 



ME. CARPENTER'S SECOND REJOINDER. 53 

also admits that the gospel was preached to the impenitent antedilu- 
vians by Christ in spirit after his crucifixion. But these admissions 
stir the bile of the brethren, they ridicule and rail at them, but they 
can not refute them. They regard this as admitting about all there is 
in the debate. Some of them say frankly to me, if they admitted 
so much they would admit it all." 

Here Mr. Hughes endorses these things which he 
says Clark Braden " admitted," since we are only said 
to admit what is regarded as true. He then admits 
future punishment, and I suppose a million, or half a 
million of years for that matter, would not make 
much difference. And he admits that there is to be 
preaching there ; and I have asked for the " commis- 
sion," but in vain. No, brother Hughes, it was not 
the old school Universalists that taught a long future 
punishment, for they denied all future punishment; 
but it is the new school. But if I was to admit this 
preaching over there, he could not prove that it would 
have any more effect there than it has here, and he can 
not prove, therefore, that all will there accept Christ 
and be saved. 

As to the opportunity of salvation in the future 
world, I quote from Thayer's Theology, pp. 128, 129 : 

" The power which he (the Father) has delegated to the Saviour 
remains with him till the work which he gave him to do is finished ; 
and, certainly, it is not finished in this life in the case of millions of 
souls dying in unbelief, and ignorance, and sin. Consequently this 
power to save continues beyond death ; continues, as Paul says, till 
the end cometh, and this end, as shown, comes after the resurrection 
and the destruction of all evil. * * * But it may be 

asked, ' How is Christ to save men after death ? ' The answer is, By 
the same means and in the same way as before death,, doubtless ; only 
increased in power and directness, and operating without the ob- 
structions incident to the flesh or earthly nature." 

Here we are taught that men are to be saved in the 
future world, according to Mr. Thayer, " by the same 
- ttieafts that they are saved here." But it has not been 
shown that these means have been provided for the 
future world ; and I now ask the brother for the proof 
upon this point But we are told that men will have 



54 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

opportunities to obey God and be restored to bis favor 
in the future world; and that the good will continue 
to desire the salvation of the wicked, that they will 
not be less solicitous there than here. In this connec- 
tion we have heard much of the feelings of parents, 
companions, etc., in heaven while their friends are in 
torment. Upon this point we quote from his brother 
Thayer : 

" The Sadducees fell into the common error, common even in our 
own time, that there is no change after death ; that we carry with us 
into the future world, the feelings, preferences, and characteristics 
of this world ; that what we desire here we shall desire there ; and 
what we do here we shall continue to do there. All this the 
Sammcr positively and plainly demes^ and shows that such reason- 
ing is false," etc. TStmhtjtj^ pp. 217, 218. 

There, brother Hughes, you may argue that point 
with your brother Thayer. So far, I am sure he has 
the advantage of you I 

Having thus answered the points in my broth er^s 
speech, I now proceed to my next negative argument, 
as follows : 

I Y. The Commonly Keceiveb Opinion of Man- 
kind, in aijl Ages, is Contradictory of this 
Proposition. The great mass of Pagans, Jews, Mo- 
hammedans, and Christians, — Catholic, Greek, and 
Protestant, have held the reverse of my opponent's 
proposition. But it is a well established principle in 
logic that whatever has had the concurrent assent of 
mankind in all ages is to be regarded as true unless 
the opposite can be clearly shown. We ask for the 
origin oi this idea. Cicero says in his Twseutan Dis- 
putations : u Whatsoever has had the universal consent 
of all nations in the remotest past ages is to be receiv- 
ed as true; for as men drew nearer to the source .or 
origin of things, the stream of truth would be less 
corrupt/' By this just rule of logic the p?*esumpti<m 
is clearly against my opponent, and he must prove his 
proposition true without a doubt, or else be is defeated. 



55 

Whence came this well nigh universal idea among all 
nations of all times ? That we have correctly stated 
the historic facts, I refer to Prideaux, (Vol. I., p. 352) 
as quoted in King and Hobb's debate, p. 89. And 
also to Manford and Sweeney's Debate, pp. 237, 238, 
365. In the " Pagan Origin of Partialist Doctrines" 
by J. C. Pitrat, it is conceded that two impersonated 
principles, endless hell, punishment, etc., were held by 
the ancient Persians, Hindoos, Chinese, Egyptians, 
Greeks, and Romans, (pp. 59-67 ; 118-160.) See also 
" Rich Man and Lazarus" p. 3. 

Universalists often claim that the idea of endless 
punishment is of heathen origin. This we deny, al- 
though it was held by them in common with the ideas 
of the Creation, the Flood, the Fall, etc. That all 
these were sadly perverted by the heathen is true ; 
but their very existence argues their divine, or true 
origin; since men have no power to originate such 
elementary ideas, though they may pervert them, and 
these perverted truths often became enormous false- 
hoods in their bearings. But let a man attempt to 
originate a radical or elementary idea, and he will feel 
the force of what we say, that this idea of endless 
punishment to the wicked was and is of divine origin, 
and has been transmitted to all peoples in all ages. 
And hence as a universally received truth, it must be 
received. We shall see how our friend will try to 
break the force of this argument. [Time expired.] . 

ME. HUGHES' THIKD SPEECH. 

Messrs. Moderators: — My brother made a re- 
mark about acorns that simply sprout and are then 
frost-bitten, and so fail to come to maturity ; and then 
he asks the question if there may not be frost-bitten 
men as well as frost-bitten acorns. Well, I would say 
it depends a little upon the color of the hair, of 



56 FIEST PEOPOSITION. 

course ! I apprehend the point that he wishes to 
make. I believe that man is an immortal being ; bat 
he was created under certain limitations and with cer- 
tain liabilities. So I understand it, and so I under- 
stand my brother does. But then I believe that be • 
cause God loves man, and because he is infinitely wise, 
and has infinite power, that his love, operating through 
his infinite wisdom and power, will not permit any of 
his creatures to be " frost-bitten," in the sense of be- 
ing punished endlessly in the future world. I do not 
believe that sin and suffering are stronger than God ; 
but that he will overcome sin, and that man will be 
finally holy and happy with God in heaven. 

He refers to u vengeance " again, and he quotes, 
" Vengeance is mine." Does he understand that ven- 
geance here when applied to God is used in the same 
sense as when it is ascribed to man? Does he 
understand vengeance there to be anything more than 
the retributive justice of God ? Let us quote it : 

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place 
unto wrath : for it is written, Vengeance is mine ; I will repay saith 
the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, 
give him drink : for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his 
head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." 
Eom. 12 : 19-21. 

I understand that God will " repay " men ; that he 
will render to every man according as his works shall 
be, and that the justice of God will not be satisfied 
until the law is fulfilled. But I understand that mercy 
has as much to do in giving to every man according 
to his works, as the justice, or the power, or any 
other attribute of God has. I will quote Ps. 62 : 11, 
12: 

" God hath spoken once ; twice have I heard this ; that power 
belongeth unto God. Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy ; for 
thou renderest to every man according to his work." 

Now here, no doubt, there is a reference to God's 

retributive justice. The rewarding of men according to 



ME. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 57 

their works is a work of justice and a work of power, 
in connection with his general administration. But it 
is said of him that in this work, in all he does, and in 
the degree in which he does it, there is also the prin- 
ciple of God's mercy, working in harmony with his 
justice and his power. And I affirm that to attribute 
vengeance to God in a bad sense, is to slander God, 
whose nature is love, " who delighteth in mercy," 
who is "good to all," and who " will have all men 
to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the 
truth." 

But he quotes Hebrews 12 : 29 : " Our God is a con- 
suming fire." And so I believe ; but I do not believe 
that he will burn up men endlessly in an eternal hell. 
" He will burn the chaff, (consume) but gather the 
wheat into his garner." (Matt. 3 : 12.) Whatsoever 
his " consuming fire " may be, I believe it to be an 
expression ot his love. I believe this fire will be noth- 
ing more than the discipline under which he places us. 

I read in Heb. 12: 4-8: 

" Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And 
ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto 
children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor 
faint when thou art rebuked of him : for whom the Lord loveth he 
chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye 
endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons : for what 
son is he whom the father chasteneth not ? But if ye be without 
chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and 
not sons." 

Now his chastisements are the chastisements of a 
father, and are designed for our correction and im- 
provement. And then he says further (v v. 9-11): 

" Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected 
us, and we gave them reverence : shall we not much rather be in 
subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live ? For they verily for 
a few days chastened us after their own pleasure ; but he for our 
profit, that we might be -partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for 
the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous : nevertheless, after- 
ward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them 
which are exercised thereby." 



58 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

Now God is a " consuming fire " as he burns up 
the dross of men's wicked works, and brings them out 
purified and holy. As Paul says, 1 Cor. 3: 13-15: 

" Every man's work shall be made manifest : for the day shall 
declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try 
every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide 
which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any 
man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be 
saved; yet so as by fire. 

So that while the works are burned, the man him- 
self is saved, yet so as by fire. 

We have the old Quaker story once more. I said 
that if he quoted the Quaker correctly, the Quaker 
said he did not want the truth. Let us see. The 
Quaker said : " If thy doctrine be true, we don't 
want thee ; " that is, of course, we don't want the 
truth ! Does the brother endorse that ? for that is just 
what the Quaker said. Now I do not believe that that 
Quaker ever lived. I think that story made up by 
somebody out of whole cloth. 

But " finite causes may produce infinite effects." I 
do not believe that he believes that, from what he said. 
Now, suppose these differences of which he speaks in 
the two characters supposed continue to widen in- 
definitely, they will never get far enough apart to be in 
degree of difference infinite. And so then they can 
never be an illustration of infinite effects from finite 
causes. You may start on the wing of an archangel, 
and travel on, and on, and on ; but you will never com- 
pass infinite space, and so you will never reach the 
idea of infinite difference in degree. Every logician 
knows that. The stream can never rise higher than its 
fountain. The finite can never become the infinite. 
And the degrees of difference of which he speaks, can 
never become infinite degrees. I do not believe that 
he can refute that position. 

He refers to the argument that God wills the final 



ME. HUGHES' THIED SPEECH. 59 

salvation cf all men; that God's will must be done; 
and that, therefore, all will be saved. But he says in 
in reply, God wills their salvation now ; but all men 
are not saved now ; and therefore God's will may be 
defeated. And he makes a syllogism for us : " What- 
ever God wills must be accomplished ; but God wills 
that all men should obey the gospel now ; therefore 
all men are now saved. But all men are not now 
saved." And he says the fault is in the logical con- 
clusion. But I say that the fault is not in the conclu- 
sion, but in the minor premise. God does not will, 
with a will of purpose or determination, that all men 
should obey the gospel now. And I ask him, Does 
God will that the whole heathen world should be 
saved now? to-day? He knows better. God does 
not will an absurdity ; he does not will them to be 
saved now, when they have no means of salvation. 
He wills to save all in his own good time ; and he 
wills to provide the means necessary to accomplish 
their salvation. That is his will, as I read it, in the 
Scriptures ; and that will will be accomplished, for his 
almighty power and wisdom working in harmony with 
his almighty love, can not be thwarted. 
He quotes Isa. 46 : 10 : 

" Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times 
the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and 
I will do all my pleasure." 

Does he mean to say that the counsel of God will 
not stand, and that he will not do all his pleasure ? 
Does he mean to say that God is going to change his 
counsels, and that his pleasure shall fail? He also 
quotes from Prov. 1 : 24-26, " Because I have called, 
and ye refused," etc.; " I also will laugh at your ca- 
lamity and mock when your fear cometh." But the 
question is, Does that prove that men will finally be 
lost ? Does that prove that they may never repent, 
be reconciled, and come from under the displeasure of 



60 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

God? Besides that, it is not God, but "wisdom" 
personified, that is speaking here. He introduces Isa. 
55:8-11: 

" For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways 
my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the 
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than 
your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from 
heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and mak- 
eth it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and 
bread to the eater ; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my 
mouth : it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish 
that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent 
it." 

But what he wants to make out of that I do not 
know. I quoted the tenth verse, " For as the rain/' 
etc., once to prove that God is omnipotent in the phys- 
ical universe. And then I quoted the eleventh verse, 
" So shall my word be," etc., to prove that he is also 
omnipotent in the moral universe, and that, therefore, 
his purposes will be accomplished. I can see Univer- 
salism in that ; but I do not see anything that will 
benefit my opponent in it. 

He quotes Job 23: 13 : "But he (God) is in one 
mind, and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." 
Now, what does he want to prove by that? God "is 
in one mind." Will he ever change ? No ; for he is 
in one mind. Will he ever damn a man to all eter- 
nity, when it is contrary to his will in time ? No, 
never, for "he is in one mind, who can turn him?" 
Will he fail in carrying out his purposes for the race? 
No ; for " what his soul desireth, even that he doeth !" 

He introduces John 6 : 37-40 : 

"All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me ; and him that 
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from 
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which 
he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up 
again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, 
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have 
everlasting life : and I will raise him up at the last day." 



61 

Now notice, 1st. That all things are given into the 
hands of Christ, and 2nd. That all God has given to 
him shall come unto him. But, say some, " So they 
will at the judgment." But I care not what you say 
about the judgment, when Christ says here they are 
not to be cast out, that of all which the Father hath 
given him, he should lose nothing. " Oh ! but Judas 
was lost, and ' went to his own place ?' " But mark 
you, he was lost that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. 
(Acts 1 : 16-20.) There were old prophecies that 
spoke of Judas' fall, which must needs be fulfilled. 
But these scriptures do not speak of the endless 
punishment of Judas, and my opponent cannot make 
out his case unless he can show that these prophecies 
refer to his future and endless condition. For his loss 
was in fulfillment of prophecy. You know I have 
already spoken of that point. He must show that the 
Scriptures he introduces refer to the final and endless 
condition of the wicked, or his argument falls to the 
ground. 

He quotes the prayer of the Saviour (Matt. 6 : 10) : 
" Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." Now, 
he says that the Saviour prayed that that should be so 
here. But I have one or two things I want the 
brother to notice. Did the Saviour desire that that 
prayer should be answered right then ? If so, he 
prayed for what he knew was impossible. Did not 
the Saviour mean by that prayer a time on this earth 
— some time yet to come — when the knowledge of the 
Lord shall cover the earth ? He must have known 
that that prayer would not be answered at once ; and 
he could not have meant that. I ask now, Will that 
prayer ever be answered? If not, he must have 
prayed for what he knew will never be granted. But 
if his will is not to be done now in earth as it is in 
heaven, then it is not true that he now wills that all 
all men should obey the gospel in this life. 



62 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

He quotes Luke 13 : 34 : 

" Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest 
them that are sent unto thee ; how often would I have gathered thy 
children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, 
and ye would not ! " 

Now if he had quoted the whole passage, it would 

have been all clear : 

" Behold, your house is left unto you desolate : and verily I say 
unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall 
say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." 

Now these very Jews that would not receive Christ 
were not to defeat the Saviour ; for the time was to 
come when they were to welcome his presence, and to 
say, " Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the 
Lord." As Paul says (Rom. 11 : 26) : 

" And so all Israel shall be saved : as it is written, There shall 
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness 
from Jacob." 

He says my system has no grace nor mercy in it. I 
say he can not make that to be true. We hold that 
there is mercy even in punishment. Ps. 62 : 12. He 
says I do not believe in pardon. I say I do. Let 
him stake out his ground here, and I will meet him 
fully and fairly. 

He says the existence of sin and misery here is com- 
patible with the existence and happiness of God, and, 
if so, it may be so forever. I say they are compati- 
ble with his government now; but will not be always, 
for the law was given for men's righteousness. Hav- 
ing created man in a low state, very far down in the 
scale of being, with the design of elevating him and 
bringing him up to a state of final holiness and hap- 
piness, it was consistent with his attributes that man 
should become liable to sin here; but that sin is an 
incidental circumstance connected with man's present 
being. But sin and misery are not consistent with the 
ultimate purposes of God with respect to man, for he 
purposes to redeem him from sin, and sin and misery 



63 

will not therefore be eternally compatible with the 
attributes of God. Now let him say, if he will, 
whether God does not design the final happiness and 
holiness of all men. Let us know what God does in- 
tend in that matter, and then we shall be able to find 
out what will be compatible or incompatible with his 
attributes. 

He says that Universalism is a failure, and then, to 
prove it, he quotes from Bro. Capen. It is true that 
he expressed himself gratified that we were improving. 
Bat I suspect that was a left-handed compliment. He 
meant to indicate that Universalists are not quite as 
good as their neighbors. Now it is not nice for us to 
try to make ourselves out better than our neighbors. 
You know that is what the Pharisee did. I won't say 
that that is what Bro. Carpenter is at, although it looks 
a good deal like it. But it is always right to make 
acknowledgment of our own defects, and hence I 
will not blame Bro. Capen, although perhaps he stated 
the case a little too strong. 

But let us see how the other side looks. I hold in 
my hand "Reason and Revelation" by President K. 
Milligan, and I will read an extract from him : 

" As a form of infidelity, it is peculiar to no time or place. — 
Wherever true religion has prevailed, there formalism has, to some 
extent, prevailed also. The ancient Hebrews were often charged 
with it ; so, too, were the Pharisees. But it is in the Church of 
Rome that Formalism has received its fullest and most complete 
development. And it is probable that it is to this phase of it that 
Paul particularly alludes in his letter to Timothy, (2 Tim. 3 : 1-5.) 
But be this as it may, one thing is very certain, that Formalism is 
not now confined to the Catholics. It exists, to a most alarming ex- 
tent, among all classes of frotestants. Indeed, it would be difficult to 
give a more perfect description of modern Christendom than the Apos- 
tle has in this short paragraph. These are certainly perilous times. 
There is also now a great amount of selfishness in the Church, and 
covetousness. Many who profess to be followers of Jesus, are 
' boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, 
unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, in- 
continent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, 
high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God ; having a 



64 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.' 

* Indeed, a merely formal profession of religion is 

always worse than useless. I know of no condition that is so much 
to be dreaded as that of the formalist ; as that of the man who is 
nominally alive in the Church, but who is really dead in spirit. Oh ! 
it is bad enough to go down into perdition under any circumstances ; 
even amidst the errors and darkness of heathen superstition. But 
to hear the awful anathema, 'Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting 
fire,' after we have been baptized into the sacred name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; after we have had our 
names inscribed on the rolls of the Church, and been allowed to 
participate in all her rites and ordinances — this, it seems to me, is 
the very consummation of human woe ! O, wretched state of deep 
despair, how can any one endure it ! The very thought of such a 
state seems to us dreadful and horrible in the extreme. But it is 
rendered doubly so, from the reflection that many of us will, in all 
probability, have to endure it, unless we amend our lives. O brethren, 
what a contrast there is between the cold and heartless formality of 
our lives, and the standard of piety and practical godliness that is 
required in the Holy Scriptures." (pp. 434, 435, 436.) 

Now, I think that will do to put by the side of his 
quotation from Bro. Capen. 

He quotes from my article in Manford's Magazine. 
I said that he could not find any confession from me 
that men would be punished for millions of years in 
the future world. And he quotes from my article, 
with reference to certain admissions of Clark Braden. 
But the quotation does not prove his point. 

As to the subject of that quotation, I shall have 
occasion, perhaps, to say more again. 

He brings in the majority argument. He says the 
Jews, Pagans, Mohammedans, and nearly all the 
Christians are with him, and, therefore, he must be 
right. Now is that proof? I recollect there was a 
time when Jesus of Nazareth stood with only twelve 
fishermen with him, as the foundation, the Rock upon 
which the Church now stands, and from which that 
Church has come up that is to overspread the earth, 
and through which the powers and principalities in 
the heavenly regions are to receive the knowledge of 
the infinite wisdom of God. But there were only 



ME. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 65 

twelve men with him then ! The multitude said 
"crucify him ! crucify him ! " But now the presump- 
tion is against Universalism because Orthodoxy, so 
called, has the greater number on its side — because it 
is numerically in the majority. Then I say the pre- 
sumption is against Christianity, for it is in the minori- 
ty too. There are more Papists than Protestants ; then 
the presumption is against Protestantism. Will he 
admit that ? There are more Pagans than Christians, 
therefore Christianity is wrong ! What kind of an 
argument is that? 

The brother has been in a hurry to get at the ques- 
tion of the will of God, as bearing on the point in 
discussion. I will now introduce an argument on that 
subject : — 

VI. God's Revealed Will of Purpose. 

" I exhort, therefore, that, first of all supplications, prayers, in- 
tercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men : for kings, 
and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and 
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and 
acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all men 
to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For 
there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the*man 
Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in 
due time." 1 Tim. 2 : 1-6. 

" Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according 
to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself : that in the 
dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one 
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on 
earth ; even in him : in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, 
being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh 
all things after the counsel of his own will." Eph. 1 : 9-11. 

1. God wills the salvation of all men ; for all to be 
saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth ; the 
ingathering of all things in Christ. 

2. This is a will of purpose. " Having made known 
unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good 
pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" 

3. The will-purpose of God must be fulfilled with- 
out the possibility of a failure. If Jehovah is that 

5 



66 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

being we worship as God; if he is infinite in wisdom 
and power ; if he is unbounded in resources ; if his 
skill is infinite ; if, in fine, he is a perfect Deity, then 
his deliberately formed will, that all men should be 
saved and come unto a knowledge of the truth, must, 
in due time, be perfectly accomplished. To deny this, 
is to deny his attributes. To take any other ground 
than this, is virtually to insist that he is not a perfect 
God ; in fact that he is no God at all. 

The Bible at least is not silent on this subject. It 
asserts the Almighty potency of him " Who worketh 
all things after the counsel of his own will" Eph. 1 : 
11. " The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely 
as I have thought, so shall it come to pass ; and as I 
have purposed so shall it stand." Isa. 14 : 24. " De- 
claring the end from the beginning, and from ancient 
times the things that are not yet done, saying, My 
counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa. 
46 : 10. " But he is in one mind, and who can turn 
him? And what his soul desireth, even that he doeth" 

Either God can save all, and will not : or, he would 
save all, and can not; or, he can and will save all. 
One of these three propositions must be true. To af- 
firm the first, conflicts with his goodness and revealed 
will. To affirm the second, conflicts with his wisdom 
and power. The third position accords to him all good- 
ness, wisdom, and power, and makes him a perfect 
Deity. The 1st is Calvinism ; the 2nd is Arminian- 
ism ; the 3rd is Universalism. The union of the 
truth taught in the two, makes the third, Universal- 
ism. 

The brother has been anxious to know if I thought 
sin wa3 from God, or if God was the author of sin. 
I said he was not ; but that he has it under his con- 
trol, that he " makes the wrath of men to praise him, 
and the residue of wrath he restrains." I cite now 
the case of Joseph and his brethren. You know Jo- 



ME. CARPENTER'S THIRD REJOINDER. 67 

seph's brethren sold him into Egypt. Now, in doing 
this they did a wicked thing — a cruel, unfeeling act. 
Well, but was God defeated in it? No; for when 
they afterwards went down to Egypt, and found that 
Joseph was alive, and he made himself known unto 
them, he said unto them : 

"Fear not: for am. I in the place of God? But as for you, ye 
thought evil against me ; but God meant it unto good, to bring to 
pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Gen. 50 : 19, 20 

Yes, they thought evil against their brother, whom 
they envied on account of their father's favor to him, 
but " God meant it for good" and he overruled it for 
good. And so we see that evil is overruled of God, 
and he will so overrule it in the end that man's final 
happiness will not be one whit less than if sin had 
never had an existence in the world. Indeed the song 
of victory would never have been sung, if sin had not 
been permitted to come into existence ; not that sin 
shall have the glory, but God, who Overrules all 
things, will so ultimate them as to contribute to the 
eternal well-being and happiness of his creatures and 
to his own matchless and eternal praise. [Time expir- 
ed.] 

MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD REJOINDER. 

Brethren Moderators : — I was glad to hear our 
brother wax eloquent in the discussion of his theme 
this afternoon ; but I would admonish him that it is 
the lightning and not the thunder that kills ; and I am 
pretty sure he will not slaughter the judgments of 
this audience by the force of his eloquence. It is 
logic, not rhetoric nor declamation, which we have a 
right to expect. He refers again to the question of the 
origin of sin, and he admits that God is not the author 
of sin ; but he says that God controls and overrules 
it ; and he brings in the case of Joseph and his breth- 
ren. Very well ; but why does God not rule it out of 



68 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

existence f Does God always turn the sins of men to 
their benefit ? Shall we sin that good may come ? 
Bat he does not answer my question as to why God 
permitted sin at all. I want to know something about 
that. I want him to tell us, if the attributes of God 
are to be employed in finally overcoming sin in the 
future world, why they were not employed to prevent 
sin and misery in this world ? He says : i( By one 
man sin entered the world/' etc.; but he does not say 
whether it was according to the will of God, or against 
his will, or without reference to his will. I want him 
to show his position on that question. Now, with ref- 
erence to Joseph's case, he says that God made the 
wrath of man to praise him, and the residue of wrath 
he restrained. But, my brother, did he justify the 
wrath of men? Or did he justify wrathful men 
either? That is the question we want answered here. 

But he says : " Either God can save all, and will 
not, or he ivould save all and can not, or he can and 
will save all." He thinks that one of these proposi- 
tions must be true. Well, I have this to say, that all 
he may say about the attributes of God, as applied to 
the future world, will apply equally to the present world. 
Whatever apparent contradictions apply there, apply 
also here. He can never get away from the force of 
that objection, never. Either God can save all now 
and will not, or he would and can not. But all are not 
saved now ; and he can determine the matter accord- 
ing to whichever alternative he pleases. As to his 
misapplication of scriptural references to burning, I 
ask him to remember that chaff and tares in the Scrip- 
tures do not represent sins so much as sinners; and 
that Paul in 1 Cor. 3 : 13-15, speaks of men and wo- 
men, as the preacher's works, not the preacher's sins — 
so much for that. 

He introduces Eph. 1 : 9-11. 

" Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according 



me. caepentee's thied eejoindee. 69 

to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself : that, in 
the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together 
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are 
on earth, even in him : in whom also we have obtained an inherit- 
ance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who 
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." 

Here he claims that God wills the salvation of all 
men, and he uses this passage to show that all things, 
including all men, are to be gathered in Christ; and 
hence all men will be finally saved. 

But there is a difference between the English prepo- 
sitions, " in " and " into ; " and there is a similar dif- 
ference between the Greek prepositions en and eis. 
En, the preposition here used, denotes position or rela- 
tion already attained, whereas if eis had been used 
after a verb of motion, it would have indicated a gath- 
ering into of those not already in. But en denotes that 
the parties whose relations are shown by it are already 
in Christ. And so in this passage we have en, the 
preposition of place, and not eis, the preposition indi- 
cating motion, or following words of motion. I sup- 
pose if you were all scattered about in the house, if 
there were not too many of you, I could gather you in 
the house around the pulpit here. And if you were 
out of the house, I could gather you into the house. 
That illustrates the difference in the meaning of these 
prepositions. But if it had been eis that the apostle 
had used, there would not have been much for my 
brother's argument even then, in the passage quoted, 
but much against it. Of whom is the apostle speaking 
when he says, "in whom also we have obtained an 
inheritance ?" etc. Who does the "we" refer to? 
Let the brother go to the address of the epistle and 
he will see that the apostle is speaking of believers 
only. He quotes also 1 Tim. 2 : 1-6, in reference to 
God's willing all men to be saved, and to come to the 
knowledge of the truth. But they do not all come to 
the knowledge of the truth. That is the difficulty;; 



70 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

and the brother must prove, not only that they all 
may, but that they all must and will come to the knowl- 
edge of the truth, or he can not prove by this passage 
that all men will be saved. 

He refers to the majority argument. Now he 
did not represent my argument correctly. I built no 
argument on "majorities." But I said this doctrine 
of future endless punishment had been in the world 
throughout all ages and, as a rule, among all people ; 
that it had come down with the ideas of God, the 
Creation, the Fall, the Flood, Babel, etc.; that it 
had come down, as I supposed, from original sources, 
since it was not to be presumed that these common 
ideas originated among men ; and that it must, there- 
fore, be accepted as true, as we accept the doctrine of 
the existence of God, unless the contrary can be clear- 
ly proved. That was my argument, and that argu- 
ment he has not met, and by it I propose to stand. 

He quotes from President Milligan as to the stand- 
ing of the Christian denomination, and as a kind of 
set-off to my quotation from Mr. Capen. Now Bro. 
Milligan says that the members of the Church of 
Christ are not as good as the Bible demands. His 
language is : 

" O brethren, what a contrast there is between the cold and heat- 
less formality of our lives and the standard of piety and practical 
godliness that is required by the Holy Scriptures." 

But that is not what brother Capen says about his 
folks. He says that the Universal ists are not as good 
as their religious neighbors. The one is a comparison 
with Bible characters ; the other is a comparison with 
other Christians. That is the difference, and that is a 
very considerable difference, my brother. But enough 
of that. 

He refers to the Saviour's prayer : " Thy will be 
done in earth as it is in heaven," and asks if Christ 
did not pray in faith, and if that prayer will not be 



MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD REJOINDER. 71 

answered. As to that, Christ had knowledge, not faith. 
But let it be noticed that he prayed that God's will 
might be done in earth, not in the future state, as 
brother Hughes would make believe. In whatever 
sense it is to be understood, it pertains to the present 
state. This fact defeats my opponent's position on the 
passage. Christ certainly did not pray, " Thy will be 
done in heaven as it is done in heaven." That would 
make nonsense ; and yet this is my brother's logic. 
I refer him again to the Saviour's prayer for the cup 
to pass, his prayer over Jerusalem, etc., and ask if 
these, too, are to be fulfilled in a future state. 
I quote John 17 : 21 : 

" That they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in 
thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may believe 
that thou hast sent me." 

Will he say that Christ does not desire that his peo- 
ple should be one now ? He prays that they may be 
one, " that the world may believe that thou hast sent 
me." And yet this desire of Christ is not fully 
realized now. I also read Isa. 53 : 11 : 

" He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied : 
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many ; for he 
shall bear their iniquities." 

I do not know in what sense my brother will admit 
that Christ " bears the iniquities " of men. That is to 
be yet developed. Perhaps we shall find out. But 
the prophet says that Christ shall " see of the travail 
of his soul and be satisfied" And in Luke 22 : 42 we 
read that when he was enduring the agony of Geth- 
semane, he said : " Father, if thou be willing, remove 
this cup from me : nevertheless, not my will, but 
thine, be done." JSow that shows how the Saviour 
prayed, and how we are to interpret his prayer, " Thy 
will be done in earth as it is in heaven." 

He persists in misapplying the passages which I in- 
troduced simply to prove that God's will is not uncon- 



72 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

ditional when affecting man's happiness ; but this will 
appear in the report. 

My brother talked in his first speech about the de- 
sire of God, and of Christ, of the angels and good 
men, for the salvation of all men. He wanted to 
know if /did not desire it, as I suppose he desires it. 
And so he concludes that because God and the angels 
and all good men desire the salvation of all men, 
therefore all men will be saved. But Paul says (2 Cor. 
5 : 11), " Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, 
we persuade men." Now here is a little difference 
between PauPs preaching and my brother's. I want 
to know whether he ever persuades men on account 
of the terror pf the Lord? When the apostles preach- 
ed we read of men " trembling." I have not seen 
anybody tremble under my brother's arguments. His 
friends seem rather inclined to laugh when they think 
he has made a point. Who ever heard of anybody's 
trembling under Universalist preaching ? How is that, 
my brother? 

But how about this argument of his on the desire 
of good men, etc., for the salvation of all mankind ? 
"We read (Prov. 10 : 24) that " the desire of the 
righteous shall be granted." But is that an uncon- 
ditional promise ? I read in Luke 10 : 23-24 : 

" And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Bless- 
ed are the eyes which see the things that ye see : for I tell you that 
many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye 
see, and have not seen them ; and to hear those things which ye 
hear, and have not heard them." 

And so it turns out that there were some things that 

the righteous propTiets and kings desired that were not 

granted. John says : (1 John 5 : 14, 15.) 

" And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask 
any thing according to his will, he heareth us. And if we know 
that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the peti- 
tions that we desired of him." 

"According to his will;" mark that, my brother. 



MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD REJOINDER. 73 

It is not my desire that is to be granted, but my desire 
according to his will. And so Jesus submitted himself 
to the will of the Father, and said, " Not my will 
but thine be done." This term, the will of God, 
as already intimated, is used in two senses, in the one 
sense it is absolute; in the other sense it is conditional; 
in the one sense it is a will of determination ; in the 
other of pleasure or desire." 

" The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty 
angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, 
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall 
be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come 
to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that be- 
lieve, (because our testimony among you was believed,) in that 
day." 2 Thes. 1 : 7-10. 

This expresses God's will of determination that the 
finally impenitent shall suffer the terrible consequences 
of their sin. But (1 Tim. 2 : 4), " Who will have all 
men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the 
truth" expresses his will of pleasure or desire. But 
our Universalist friends fail to take notice of these 
obvious distinctions, and so rush into error in regard 
to the will of God. 

But my brother turns to me and asks, if I do not 
desire that all men should, quit drunkenness, dishon- 
esty, etc., and do right. I certainly do desire it, and 
pray for it : but I pray in submission to the will of 
God. The will of man must be in harmony with the 
will of God wherever man's salvation is at stake. I 
have no authority to desire or expect the salvation 
of any man only according to the will of God as 
given in his holy word. I desire men to be saved 
now through the gospel. 

But he says that I must find passages that state 
clearly the final and endless punishment of men, or 
my argument fails. Well that is just what I have 
been doing. I have been trying to show that I and 



74 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

my brother only differ as to the punishment beyond 
death in reference to its duration. But he is in the af- 
firmative, not I. He admits that men are punished in 
the next world — we both admit that. But the point 
is, will men be relieved by obedience and submission 
over there of the consequences of sin committed here; 
And I have been calling for the proof of that doctrine. 
I have been calling for a commission to men to preach 
the gospel over there ; but I have had no reply, and I 
think I know the reason why I have none. Perhaps 
you will find it out by and by. Let the brother bring 
the Scriptures to prove his point, and I think I shall 
have mine on hand to prove mine. True God has a 
government, and a law; and outside of a conformity to 
these he has no will of purpose or determination for 
man's salvation. His will of determination is to pun- 
ish endlessly those who die in willful disobedience to 
the gospel. So teach the Scriptures, and so I believe. 

But he says God does not note will the salvation of 
all men here. I do not know that I fully understand 
what he means by that. When God " commands all 
men everywhere to repent" and to repent noic, does he 
command what he does not will f Do these commands 
express his will $ Or are his commands opposed to his 
will? Or have they no respect to his will? ^Yhich is 
correct? How is it? Will he tell us? But if his 
commands accord with his will, as I believe they do, 
then, if the brother prefers the term, his will must be 
thwarted ; and the same principle that will allow of 
his will being thwarted now, will allow of its being 
thwarted eternally. And here I observe that several 
of my quotations referred to in the brother's last 
speech, were not introduced to prove the eternal pun- 
ishment of the wicked, but to show that God's will of 
pleasure may be defeated. 

He takes up the infinite consequence argument. 
You know my position : that two men of equal cir- 



MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD REJOINDER. 75 

cumstances, live so differently here, that they start in 
the other world with a hundred degrees of difference 
of moral character between them. I said that they 
diverged here, and were diverging the last we knew of 
them, and for all that could be made appear, they 
would continue to diverge endlessly—that the degree 
of divergence would be infinite in duration for it 
would be continued forever. And so, upon his own 
admission, there would be endless punishment, for an 
infinite result would follow the finite action of the 
man who, by his own fault, fell behind his brother. 
Whether my brother really answered that argument I 
will leave you to judge for yourselves. He says it 
will not be endless, because they will never reach the 
end ! Ait will there be any end to reach, my broth- 
er? If it did reach an end, would it be end-less f 
This hundred degrees or more will ever remain be- 
tween them. 

He brings up the Quaker again. He says I mis- 
apprehended the Quaker. Let us see. The Quaker 
said : " If thee does not preach the truth, we do not 
want thee ; and if thee does, we do not need thee." 
That is, they would be safe anyhow, by his doctrines. 
That is what he said. This fact was evidence of its 
falsity. 

I remember that the infidel Rosseau once thus rep- 
rimanded his fellow infidels : 

" Under the pretence of being themselves the only people enlight- 
ened, they imperiously subject us to their magisterial decisions ; and 
would fain palm upon us as the true causes of things, the unintelli- 
gible systems they have erected in their own heads. * * * 
' Truth,' they say, • is never hurtful to man.' I believe that as well 
as they ; and the same, in my opinion, is proof that ivhat they teach is not 
truth.'''' 

Perhaps that is the reason why the old Quaker did 
not want their preaching. 

He dwells upon the " majority " and minority ques- 
tion, and he says, on that line of argument, Chris- 



76 FIRST PROPOSITION". 

tianity is wrong because it is in the minority, and 
Protestantism is in the wrong because there are more 
Catholics than Protestants, and so forth. But are we 
in the minority among those competent to judge f I 
don't think we are. But I built no argument upon 
simple majorities, but upon the conceded idea that has 
come down through all ages. 

" God will render to every man according to his 
works." We shall have a chance to discuss that by 
and by. 

He again brings up the matter of the divine " ven- 
geance." Perhaps you saw what he was trying to do 
with that. I think he was trying to cover it up, and 
to mystify you in regard to the point before us. As 
the matter is up, and he wants me to prove that ven- 
geance is an attribute of God, I will say that I will 
prove it in the same way that he proves that justice 
or mercy is an attribute of God. I think you will 
not find these called, anywhere in the Bible, attributes 
of God. They are attributed to God. They stand in 
this respect on a par with vengeance. Now, when he 
finds the Scripture that styles justice a divine attri- 
bute, then I will take his argument and show that 
vengeance is also an attribute of God. I believe I can 
let that matter rest there. 

But he says that God's vengeance means his retribu- 
tive justice, and he says his justice will not be satis- 
fied until the requirement of the law is met. Now I 
thought that the justice of God was retributive in its 
character, but that the retribution was expressed in 
the penalty inflicted. In our courts of justice they 
are supposed to attach a just penalty to crime, and it 
is the following out of this penal sentence that satis- 
fies the justice of the law. I think my brother is 
slightly confused on that question of retributive just- 
ice, if I understand his position in regard to it. 

But he quotes Psa. 62 : 12 : " Also unto thee, O 



ME. CARPENTER ? S THIRD REJOINDER. 77 

Lord, belongeth mercy, for thou wilt render to every 
man according to his work." And so he says that his 
vengeance is but the expression of his mercy. But 
David exalts the mercy of God as exhibited to man, 
in view of the fact that he will at last " render unto 
every man according to his work." That is what he 
will do. He manifests his mercy now ; he will render 
to every man according to his works hereafter. See in 
this connection Psa. 73, where this thought is fully 
developed. 

But he has introduced some other Scriptures I want 
to notice. I believe I have noticed Eph. 1 : 9-11, in- 
troduced in his last speech. 

Let him evade my reasoning on this if he can. But 
I want to call attention to Rom. 8 : 6-8, previously in- 
troduced. It is in reference to this flesh sin. You 
know he took the position that man's sin is greatly 
aggravated, if not caused, by his connection with the 
flesh. The passage reads : 

" For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be spiritually mind- 
ed is life and peace : because the carnal mind is enmity against 
God : for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 
So then they that are in the flesh can not please God." 

Now my brother implies that the sins mentioned here 
are sins of the flesh — sins arising from the body, and 
that these sins will cease as soon as we get out of the 
flesh. That is the inference he draws from the passage. 
But he stops with that verse : " so then they that are in 
the flesh can not please God." But in this case I read 
two verses more. (vv. 9-10.) 

" But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the 
Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit 
of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is 
dead because of sin ; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." 

Now you will notice that the distinction here is not 

between those in the body and those out of the body, as 

my brother infers. But these Roman brethren, who 

were still alive, and in that sense " in the flesh" were 



78 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

not, in the sense of the apostle, and for the purposes of 
his argument, " in the flesh" but " in the Spirit." 
And so Paul says that " if any man have not [now] the 
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Please mark that 
expression. That argument applies to several other 
passages quoted by the brother. 

He also introduces Dan. 9: 24. Let us read the 
connection, (vv. 24-27.) 

" Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 
holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, 
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting 
righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint 
the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the 
going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, 
unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven Aveeks, and threescore 
and two weeks : the street shall be built again, and the wall, even 
in troublous times. And after three score and two weeks shall Mes- 
siah be cut off, but not for himself : and the people of the prince 
that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ; and the 
end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war deso- 
lations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with 
many for one week : and in the midst of the week he shall cause 
the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of 
abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consumma- 
tion, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." 

Now when was this prediction to be accomplished ? 
"Was it to be away over yonder in the future world? 
When was the Saviour " to make an end of sin, and to 
make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in ever- 
lasting righteousness ? " etc. Why, " Seventy weeks 
are determined," etc. And " from the going forth of 
the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, 
unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and 
threescore and two weeks : the street shall be built again 
and the wall, even in troublous times." And so this 
prophecy was to be fulfilled in the seventy weeks, or at 
the time of the Saviour, over eighteen hundred years 
ago. 

Yet my brother is not peculiarly at fault in his course 
here. His brethren are in the habit of picking up a 



MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD REJOINDER. 79 

text here and another there, and putting them together, 
and keeping up a kind of jingle with them about the 
" final happiness and holiness of all men " ; when these 
passages, perhaps, refer really to Christians or to the 
Jews, or to somebody else; but they make them all 
apply to all men! He has only been following the 
practice of his Universalist brethren. Some other 
points we will refer to again. 

I proceed to my next argument. 

Y. The Philosophy of this Life Contra- 
dicts Universalism. We may be asked here why 
God created us subject to sin and endless misery ? We 
ask in turn, Why did he create us subject to sin and 
misery at all ? Why did he create us at all ? Or, if 
created, why subject to this earthly probation, with its 
consequences? We challenge any man to show any 
propriety in our earthly existence at all on the Univer- 
salist hypothesis. But as the Scriptures view it, and 
as the poet expresses it : 

" Life is the time to serve the Lord, 
The time to insure the great reward, 
And while the lamp holds out to burn, 
The vilest sinner may return." 

On this principle we can see the philosophy of our 
present life. Man is put upon probation here, prepara- 
tory to an eternal doom. " Whatsoever a man soweth, 
that shall he also reap." Gal. 6:7. If he shall " sow 
iniquity, he shall reap vanity." Prov. 22 : 8. Or, as 
intensified, " He that soweth to the wind shall reap the 
whirlwind." Hosea 8 : 7. And if we " sow to the 
spirit," " in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." 
Gal. 6:9. But some do faint, and if they faint, accord- 
ing to this text, they do not reap. It is true that God 
is willing that all men should be saved. 

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men 
count slackness ; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that 
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet. 
3:9. 



80 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

But men thwart this good will and pleasure of God ; 
they do not " come to repentance/' and so do " perish/' 
See also Ezekiel 18 : 23-32 : 

" Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die ? saith 
the Lord God : and not that he should return from his ways, and 
live ? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, 
and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abomina- 
tions that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteous- 
ness that he hath done shall not be mentioned : in his trespass that 
he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall 
he die. Yet we say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, 
O house of Israel ; Is not my way equal ? are not your ways un- 
equal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteous- 
ness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them ; for his iniquity 
that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turn- 
eth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth 
that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because 
he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he 
hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith 
the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of 
Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? There- 
fore, I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his 
ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all 
your trangressions ; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away 
from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed ; and 
make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O 
house of Israel ? . For I have no pleasure in the death of him that 
dieth, saith the Lord God : wherefore turn yourselves and live ye." 

Revelation 14 : 13, " Blessed are the dead that die in 
the Lord/' shows that probation hinges this side of 
death, else there is no force in this language. Men did 
not " like to retain God in their memories." They 
"love darkness rather than light." Man was created 
with the liberty of choice. 

"Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer ; they shall 
seek me early, but they shall not find me: for that they hated 
knowledge, and did not choose the way of the Lord:" Prov. 1, 
28-29. 

" Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow 
down to the slaughter : because when I called, ye did not answer ; 
when I spake, ye did not hear ; but did evil before mine eyes, and 
did choose that wherein I delighted not." Isa. 65 : 12. 

" By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called 
the son of Pharaoh's daughter ; choosing rather to suffer affliction 



81 

with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a 
season." Heb. 11 : 24, 25. 

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that 
I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing : therefore 
choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Deut. 30 : 19. 

" And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 
5:40. 

" But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my 
hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." Eom. 10 : 21. 

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and 
stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have 
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens 
under her wings, and ye would not ! " Matt. 23 : 37. 

Now all these passages plainly imply that man is 
capable of choosing, and that his choice may be oppos- 
ed to the will or pleasure of God. But my brother 
admits that man is capable of choosing. He says that 
" God made him a free agent, and as a free agent he sin- 
ned." He claims, moreover, that he will be a free 
agent over there. Now, if, as a free agent, he sinned 
here, may he not sin over there? By what argument 
will he show that, on his hypothesis, if free agency 
or probation extends to the future world, he will not 
again sin ? And if so, what becomes of his doctrine 
of the final happiness and holiness of all mankind ? — 
[Time expired.] 



ME. HUGHES' FOUKTH SPEECH. 

Messrs. Moderators : — The brother starts out again 
by w x anting to know whether God willed the existence 
of sin, or by asking me the question again whether God 
is the author of sin. I told him very distinctly that I 
did not understand God to be the author of sin. I said 
to him very distinctly in one of my speeches : That God 
made man a subject of law ; that he made him a free 
moral being, under liability to fall — that the creature 



82 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

was made subject to vanity — that man was created very 
low down in the scale of being — that he was ignorant 
and weak, and being free to fall, he fell. That thus sin 
came into the world, God not willing sin ; but it came 
in through the agency of man. Sin thus exists ; but it 
is controlled, bounded, and overruled. That God will 
make the wrath of man to praise him, and the residue 
of wrath he will restrain. Ps. 76 : 10. And then I 
told him that the wicked act of Joseph's brethren was 
overruled for good — that they thought it for evil but 
God meant it for good — that in the ultimate purpose of 
God, it is his will that sin shall not finally destroy man, 
or defeat his purpose with reference to man. And that 
God sent his Son to take away the sin of the world. 
And I showed that: 

" For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might 
destroy the works of the devil." 1 John 3 : 8. 

And God says that there shall be a boundary to sin 
— that it shall be limited and destroyed — that it shall 
come to an end. But my brother says it shall not be so 
— that it shall exist forever. Now you can believe the 
brother if you choose ; but I prefer to believe Christ 
and the apostles. 

But he brings up that trilemma : God can save all 
men and will not, or will and can not ; or both can and 
will save all. But he says : If we are right in applying 
that to the future, that it applies equally now. I would 
like him to say right out here whether God would save 
all men now, and if he would, can he do it? Will he 
answer ? Again he says : God can save all men from 
sin now. I believe that. I distinctly asserted that 
God can, but will not. I meet the position he takes. 
I say he can, but will not, because it is not consistent 
with his plan, with the moral nature of man, and with 
the law and government of God, which takes into ac- 
count man's condition, and the schooling and experience 



ME. HUGHES' FOTJKTH SPEECH. 83 

God designed for him. I quote from Mr. Alexander 
Campbell in his debate with Owen. (pp. 347, 348.) 

" We have but a small part of the picture before us. Paul ex- 
plains the whole of it. He teaches us that this world is, in the 
moral empire, what it is in the natural — a part of a great whole. When 
speaking of all the irregularities in human lot, and all the diversi- 
ties in the divine government, in the different ages of the world, 
patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian, he teaches us that the whole of 
this arrangement is subordinate to another state of things, having re- 
lation to the whole rational universe. All this is done, said he, that 
now unto the thrones, principalities, and powers in the heavenly 
regions, might be exhibited, by the Christian scheme, the wonderful 
wisdom of God. Here are various grades of intelligent beings who, 
in their different capacities, and according to their different situa- 
tions and relations, are contemplating this scheme of things, and 
from these volumes of human nature the divine character is devel- 
oping itself to their view." * * * * 
" In one sentence, it appears to be a law of 
human nature that man can only be developed and brought into 
proper circumstances to please himself, by what we call experience. 
[And that is what I am contending for exactly.] You may not be 
able to account for it, but so it is, that man must be taught by experi- 
ence. I think we will all agree in this, that if Adam and Eve could 
have had, while in Eden, the experience which they obtained after 
their exile, and which the world now presents, they never could have 
been induced to taste the forbidden tree. Every revolution of the 
earth, and all the events recorded in human history, are but so many 
preparations for the introduction of that last and most perfect state of 
society on earth called the millennium. First we have the germ, 
then the blade, then the stem, then the leaves, then the blossoms, 
and., last of all, the fruit." 

Now, Mr. Campbell, when debating with an infidel, 
recognizes the very same principle that I do in regard 
to the philosophy of the present state of things. And 
I commend the study of his words to Bro. Carpenter. 

Bro. Carpenter in reply to my argument on God's 
revealed will and purpose, drawn from Eph. 1 : 8-10, 
makes a criticism on en and eis. He is familiar with 
those words as they relate to the controversy about " in 
the Jordan," and " into the water." He seems to under- 
stand the passage to teach that those who are in Christ 
now are at some future time to be gathered into one 
body. I reply that those in Christ are already in " one 



84 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

body." They are members of the Church — the body 
of Christ, and there is but one body. But the word 
rendered " gather together in one " means to sum up, to 
re-unite, to unite under one head, to recapitulate. The 
one head under which, or in which all are to be united, 
is Christ. And it is God's purpose to unite in Christ, 
or under him, all things whether they be things on earth 
or things in heaven. The phrase " all things is equiva- 
lent to " all men." In 1 Tim. 2 : 4, Gocl will " have all 
men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the 
truth." Now, when all things that are on earth and in 
heaven, are gathered together in Christ, there will be 
nothing left out, will there? I think that argument 
will stand. 

And I commend to him what Mr. Campbell says in 
reference to this gathering together in one all things in 
Christ. He says : 

" From all these sayings and allusions (Eph. 1 : 3-12) we must 
trace the constitution of this kingdom into eternity — before time be- 
gan. We must date it from everlasting, and resolve it into the abso- 
lute gracious ivitt of the eternal God." — Christian System, p. 155. 

Now, Mr. Campbell thinks that this purpose relates to 
the absolute will of God ; that is, his will of deter- 
mination or purpose. And so it will assuredly be done. 

But Bro. Capen says some Universalists are not as 
good as their neighbors. But does he say so of all of 
them ? But President Milligan says if brother Carpen- 
ter's " Christian " brethren do not mend their lives, they 
will go to eternal fire. That is what he says ; and that 
is a good deal worse than Bro. Capen has said. 

He asks for the commission again for preaching the 
gospel in the future state. The brother is in a great 
hurry to draw me out on that point : but I am not the 
man that he can hurry a particle. When the time 
comes, I will settle that point beyond controversy, and 
you will see that I will do it. 

But he does long for the salvation of all men. Now 



MR. HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 85 

the thing I want to know is, if he will be as good a 
man in heaven as he is here? Orthodoxy has taught a 
literal torment of the damned in a literal fire. Does 
he believe that? I know that orthodoxy changes, 
chameleon-like, and he will not admit literal fire in hell; 
but orthodoxy used to hold to that doctrine. Now I 
want to know if he could be happy in heaven and 
know that millions of men were being tormented end- 
lessly in his spiritual hell ? I tell you it would throw 
a pall of darkness over the joy of heaven ! Now, if he 
will allow God and the angels and the Saviour to be as 
good as he is here and will be there, they will be on the 
side of universal salvation ; they will all want the tor- 
ment to cease, and man to be made finally holy and 
happy. 

He quotes 2 Cor. 5:11: " Knowing therefore the 
terror of the Lord we persuade men." But Dr. Clarke 
says " terror " is too a harsh a translation of the origin- 
al, that it should be rendered " the fear of the Lord." 
He says that "the fear of God is the beginning of 
wisdom; but the terror of the Lord confounds and over- 
powers the soul." I would like my brother to say 
whether he can persuade people by terror; whether 
there is anything persuasive in terror f I think there is 
a sort of confusion of sentiment in that, and that my 
brother will have to try something else. 

He had something to say about the Saviour's pray- 
ing. The Saviour prayed, " Thy kingdom come, thy 
will be done in earth as it is in heaven." Now, when 
that prayer is answered, there will be nobody to oppose 
Christ's will, will there ? Christ prayed that {< they all 
may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, 
that they also may be one in us ; that the world may 

BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME." Jno. 17: 21. 

Now, when that day shall come, I want to know if 
universal salvation will not be true? 

But he says that when Christ prays, he submits him- 



86 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

self to the will of the Father. Then when Christ prays 
for the salvation of all men, God wills something else,> 
does he ? Is that it ? Now in that prayer referred to he 
prayed for all men, and if he prayed according to the 
will of God, it will be done. Did Christ pray in faith, 
as he commanded his disciples to pray ? Most certain- 
ly. For what is not of faith is sin. Rom. 14 : 23. 
His prayer then will be answered. "But the Saviour 
prayed, " Let this cup pass from me," etc., and it was 
not done. Yes; but that was not an absolute prayer. 
It was a prayer in view of the sufferings that he was to 
endure and that was then pressing upon him ; and in 
that case he distinctly prayed in submission to the 
Father's will ; for he said, " Not my will but thine be 
done." But in the salvation of men Christ's will is 
God's will, and he came to work out that will. 

Now I want to know, Does God will anything that 
he knows can not take place? I say he does not. 
Does he will the salvation of the heathen, when he 
knows they have not the means of salvation, now? 
Does he will that they shall be saved now? No, he 
does not. Now let him answer these questions, and 
then I will attend to what he says. 

But he says God's will is sometimes thwarted. But 
it is said (Dan. 4 : 35) : 

"He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and 
among the inhabitants of the earth : and none can stay his hand, or 
say unto him, What doest thou ? " 

Now the man that said that, once thought that God's 
will could be thwarted, and they turned him out to eat 
grass like an ox, and then he learned better, and declar- 
ed that God's will could not be defeated. But my 
brother puts himself with Nebuchadnezzar, and says 
God's will can be defeated. Perhaps if he was put 
through a similar process with Nebuchadnezzar he 
would learn better too ? 

He brings up those degrees of difference again. Now 



87 

I say that a man's position to-day is on account of his 
character to-day. And his position to-morrow will be 
on account of his character to-morrow. And his posi- 
tion in eternity will be on account of his character in 
eternity. And so there is no such thing as infinite ef- 
fects flowing from finite causes. I tell you I think he 
had better begin to say something reasonable about 
that. 

He quotes Psa. 62: 12: "Unto thee, O Lord, be- 
longeth mercy, for thou renderest to every man accord- 
ing to his work." 

My brother seems to understand this Psalm most 
evidently to be against him. He knew if he quoted 
the passage right, he could never prove his doctrine by 
the text. And so he misquoted it. He quoted it u Unto 
thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy for thou wilt render, 
to every man according to his work." But it reads, 
"thou renderest," etc. It is in the present tense. 
He is speaking of something that God is doing in this 
present world. He is doing it now, and he will con- 
tinue to do it, for Christ reigns in justice and judgment 
in his kingdom. 

My opponent quotes the enemies of Christ are to be 
destroyed; their end is destruction. But does destruc- 
tion mean endless misery? I read in Hosea 13: 9, " O 
Israel thou hast desteoyed thyself; but in me is thine 
help." They were not suffering endless misery. The 
prodigal is said to have perished (the word rendered 
perish, is the same one rendered destroyed) with hunger ; 
and yet he went back to his father's house and was 
welcomed there. So it was not endless misery that is 
meant by destruction. But does the brother mean that 
vengence is an attribute of God ? He said he would 
prove it is an attribute of God in the same way that I 
could prove that justice is an attribute of God. Now 
I read that " all his ways are judgment, a God of truth 
and without iniquity, just and right is he." Deut. 32 : 



88 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

4. He is said to be " a just God and a Saviour." Isa. 
45: 21. But where is it said that he is vengeance? I 
know he says, " Vengeance is mine ; " but it refers to 
his retributive justice, for he adds : " I will repay, saith 
the Lord." And the vengeance spoken of as belonging 
to God, is nothing like the passion that exists in men. 
There are very few, except those who have gone very 
far in the absurdities which cling around the doctrine of 
our brother who can see anything like that in the nature 
of that God who is love, and whose tender mercies are 
over all his works. 

But does not justice require punishment ? Certainly, 
it requires punishment and inflicts it, to enforce obedi- 
ence. That is its first requirement, and its ultimate 
requirement is that justice, in its first demand, may be 
obeyed. 

But he says that I quoted a passage with reference to 
the other life that belongs to this life. It is Bom. 8 : 
5-9: 

" For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh ; 
but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to 
be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life 
and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God : for it 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then 
they that are in the flesh can not please God. But ye are not in the 
flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. 
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." 

Now he did not seem to understand me on that pass- 
age. In that passage, it is true, Christians are not 
counted as in the flesh ; that is, they are counted as 
raised from the dead in the moral sense, and therefore 
not under the control of the flesh. But that does not 
contradict the argument in support of which the text 
was quoted. On the other hand, it proves conclusively 
the influence which the flesh exerts upon men who are 
under its power. 

He brings up Dan. 9 : 24 : " Seventy weeks are de- 
termined," etc. And he says that the whole of that 



ME. HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 89 

prophecy was fulfilled when Christ came in the flesh. 
But did he then " make an end of sins ? " Was " the 
vision and the prophecy sealed up ? " I say that at the 
end of those prophetic weeks there was put in operation 
that plan which should ultimate in the making an end 
of sins, and the bringing in of everlasting righteous- 
ness. That was to be the inauguration of a movement 
that should result in the destruction of the works of 
the devil, and in the final triumph of the plans and 
and purposes of God in respect- to the creatures he has 
made. 

But he complains that Universalists " scrap " the 
Bible. I thought it was his party did that, but he says 
it is my party. Well, we will see about that. I think 
when he quoted Luke 13 : 34, and left off the next 
verse, that completely refutes his position, he was scrap- 
ping Scripture himself! Let him see now that he is 
not guilty of the very practice of which he accuses 
others. 

He quoted the passage in Matt. 23 : 37, 38 : 

" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest 
them that are sent unto thee ; how often would I have gathered thy 
children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, 
and ye would not ! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." 

And he quoted it to prove that the will of Christ 
could be defeated. But he ought to have quoted the 
next verse, which says : 

" For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall 
say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." 

And so the time was to come when they were to be 
willing to receive and welcome the Saviour, whom they 
then rejected. They become willing in the day of his 
power. 

But he is anxious to know why God created us sub- 
ject to sin and misery in this life. I think I have al- 
ready sufficiently answered that question. And I will 
say to him that though God has permitted sin and mis- 



90 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

ery in this life, yet he intends to bring men out of it. 
I read Micah 7 : 18, 19 : 

"Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and pass- 
eth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage ? he retain- 
eth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy. lie will 
turn again, he will have compassion upon us ; he will subdue our 
iniquities ; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the 
sea." 

Now when that is fulfilled, sin and suffering will be 
done away. 

My brother quotes the verse, in which occurs the 
words : 

" While the lamp holds out to burn, 
The vilest sinner may return." 

Now, he endorses that — be adopts the sentiment as 
his. We will see about that by and by. 
He quotes Gal. 6:7-9: 

" Be not deceived : God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man 
soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall 
of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall 
of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well 
doing : for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not"; 

and also some parallel passages in which there is the 
idea of sowing and reaping, and he emphasizes the ex- 
pression, " Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also 
reap" and he applies that to punishment in the other 
world. Now I ask him this question : Will the literal, 
physical bodies of men be raised up in the future state? 
And will there be a punishment of the body in the 
future state ? Now, when he answers these questions, 
I will show there is no way in which these passages can 
be made to prove his doctrine of future endless punish- 
ment. For it is " of the flesh that men are to reap cor- 
ruption." 

But he says there is a philosophy of life. And so 
there is a grand philosophy in life. Life is the gift of 
God. It is that which is immortal in us, because God's 
image is in us. And I hold that in that life which is in 
men, and which is of the nature of him from whom we 



91 

derived our being, there is something that will attract 
us to God, and will finally lift us up to God and heaven. 
There is some philosophy in that, which I wish my 
brother would take hold of. 

I will now proceed to my seventh direct argument on 
this proposition. 

VII. Christ's Mission and Ministry. The 
purpose of Christ's Mission was to save all mankind : 

" For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was 
lost." Luke 19: 10. 

" Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that 
sent me, and to finish his work." Jno. 4 : 34. 

" For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world : 
but that the world through him might be saved." Jno. 3 : 17. 

" And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to 
be the Saviour of the world." 1 Jno. 4 : 14. 

That he might work out to complete fulfillment this 
purpose of his mission, universal dominion was given 
him, in heaven and earth, over the dead and the living. 
All men everywhere were made subject to him, and 
fullness of power, adequate to the overcoming of all 
difficulties, was bestowed upon him. This is clearly 
enunciated in the following passages of Scripture : 

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is 
given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt. 28 : 18. 

" As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give 
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." Jno. 17 : 2. 

" For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he 
might be Lord both of the dead and living." Kom. 14 : 9. 

" For our conversation is in heaven ; from whence also we look 
for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ ; who will change our vile 
body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, accord- 
ing to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto 
himself." Phil. 3 : 20, 21. 

His mission contemplates the final salvation of all. 
He is able to finish the work he has undertaken. If he 
does not finish his work, it will be because he can not 
or will not. To say he will not, is contrary to the ex- 
pressed purpose of his mission. To say he can not, is 



92 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

to make him an imperfect Saviour, and to argue that 
God has not employed means adequate to the accom- 
plishment of his will. 

To this end Christ's ministry is addressed to men in 
this world and to men in the future world ; and his gov- 
ernment made to extend over all men, " the dead and 
the living." Proof: 

" For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the un- 
just, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, 
but quickened by the Spirit : by which also he went and preached 
unto the spirits in prison : which sometime were disobedient, when 
once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved 
by water." 1 Pet. 3 : 18-20. 

" Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick 
and the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to 
them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in 
the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Pet. 4 : 5, 6. 

Christ's judgment is universal ; this necessitates the 
idea of a universal proclamation of the gospel. The 
end, that " they may live according to God in the spir- 
it." 

The Scriptures assert the accomplishment of the pur- 
pose of Christ's mission and ministry, and declare him 
to be the Saviour of the world. 

" Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief ; 
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his 
seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall 
prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and 
shall be satisfied : by his knowledge shall my righteous servant jus- 
tify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." Isa. 53 : 10, 11. 

" And many more believed because of- his own word : and said 
unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying : for we 
have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, 
the Saviour of the world." Jno. 4 : 41, 42. 

The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 
He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. 
Nothing short of the salvation of every soul of man, 
for whom he poured out his soul unto death, would sat- 
isfy him. Nor can he be truly called the Saviour of 
the world unless he actually saves all. 



ME. CARPENTER'S FOURTH REJOINDER. 93 

"He'll finish sin, and men restore, — 
All creatures shall their God adore ; 
The anthem long and loud shall swell, 
For Jesus hath done all things well." 
[Time expired.] 

ME. CARPENTER'S FOURTH REJOINDER. 

Messrs. Moderators : — My brother is very fond of 
poetry. He closes his speech with a piece, and that is 
all very well. But I told you I should not attempt to 
answer poetical arguments. I quoted a little piece to 
which he has referred. I always quote poetry with 
poetic license. 

My friend refers to the origin of sin again. He says 
" God made man low down in the scale of being, and 
liable to sin," etc. But I have been asking, Wliy God 
did so ? How does it come if he intends, by his power, 
goodness, and wisdom to overcome sin finally, that he 
permitted it at all ? Why did God build up that which 
he purposed ultimately to pull down ? I would like 
that question answered; if my brother is so very famil- 
iar with the purposes of God as he pretends. 

I said there were many things relating to God that 
our finite' capacities can not comprehend. But my 
brother has a peculiar mode of argument. He takes it 
for granted that whatever we can not comprehend, must 
sustain his doctrine ? He seems to reason thus : — 
" There is something we can not comprehend ; therefore 
Universalism is true ! We want better argument than 
that, 

I notice that when the Bible says something that 
seems to suit him, he takes it in its most literal sense. 
Eternal, everlasting, etc., are all without limit when they 
seem to favor his doctrine. But when it does not suit 
his views, there is very little meaning in the Scriptures. 

He says God can destroy sin and will not, or would 
and can not; or can and will destroy it. Now there 



94 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

are some things that God can not do. He "can not 
lie " ; he " can not deny himself." He can not repudi- 
ate his own plans, or take back his own threatenings, 
which express his will of determination. My brother 
" can not " make much out of that argument either. 

He made a quotation from Alexander Campbell, and 
it was a grand passage. But I did not see exactly why 
he quoted it. I think if he looks closely, he will find 
that Bro. Campbell was not writing with reference to 
the views entertained by the brother; and when fairly 
understood does not favor them. Still I am glad he 
quotes from him ; — he is a good author from whom to 
quote ; and if my friend will only follow Mr. Campbell 
he will not be so very far wrong. 

In regard to his argument on the divine will, with 
respect to what God purposes, we are only safe, in say- 
ing what he will do, by first finding out what he says 
he will do. If we trust to mere inference we may 
easily drift into dangerous vortexes. I remember there 
is an argument by Epicurus in which that old philoso- 
pher tries to. prove that there is no God; and his line of 
argument is almost identical with that of my opponent, 
in regard to God's getting rid of sin by the exercise of 
his power and other attributes. 

Then he refers again to Eph. 1 : 8-10, and he wants 
to know if those that are already in Christ are to be 
again gathered in him. I fail to see the force of that 
criticism. Jews and Gentiles, dead saints and living 
saints are to be gathered together. There is a sense in 
which there is to be a gathering together of all things 
in Christ whether now in heaven or in the earth. The 
dead saints and the living saints are to be brought .to- 
gether. So that I can not see any difficulty whatever 
in the passage. 

But I misquoted Ps. 62 : 12. Well, I noticed he 
misquoted it too: he left out the word "also." It 
reads : " Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy," 



MR. CARPENTER'S FOURTH REJOINDER. 95 

etc. But he says that it is in the present tense : " Thou 
renderest to every man according to his work." Very 
well. But I have shown that he will render, at the last 
day, according to their works; and if it is true that 
God renders now to men according to their works, that 
does not prove that he will not do so perfectly and 
finally then. But he quotes Ps. 76 : 10, and emphasizes 
" the residue (of wrath) will he restrain" But what 
of it? If he wille xamine Dr. Clarke, he will find it 
rendered " will gird himself/' as for vengeance. 

And here I call attention to another thing : when, he 
is speaking of future punishment he does not usually 
call it punishment, but misery or torment. He speaks 
of " endless misery," and " everlasting misery," etc. 
He seems to want to make it as miserable as possible. 
We will have occasion to find out what he means by 
these terms by and by. 

But Bro. Milligan is brought upon the tapis again. 
Now, when Bro. M. uses the words " everlasting fire," 
how does brother Hughes know that he means endless 
torment? He does not seem to think that "eternal" 
means literally eternal, when applied to future punish- 
ment in the Scriptures. If he understands Bro. M. to 
mean endless punishment, why not understand the Bible 
so? After all, Bro. Milligan was not comparing his 
brethren with others, but with the requirements of the 
Scriptures ; and I suppose it is always right for us to 
refer our actions to the divine rule. 

But my brother says he can not be hurried. Well, I 
don't like to be hurried myself, either. Take your time, 
brother ; we will wait on you ! 

But he says orthodoxy is changing like a chameleon. 
Well, now — a Universalist talking that way ! A Uni- 
versalist talking of people changing ! Why, I can go 
to Universalist writers who taught that the blood of 
Christ does not affect us in the other world; that all 
men go straight from this world to heaven, and all that 



96 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

— the very opposite of the views here admitted by my 
brother. Indeed, what have they not taught? I tell 
you it comes with a very ill grace from him to talk 
about any body changing their views of the teaching 
of the Bible. 

He refers to the " terrors of the Lord," and refers to 
Adam Clarke's views ; but I did not see that he made 
any point against me there. 

As to wishing that all men would come to Christ, I 
would have all men come now ; but they don't come. 
Ged would have them come now; the Spirit would 
have them come noiv ; the Saviour would have them 
come now, and so would the Church ; but they don't 
come — there is the trouble. And so I do not see that 
my brother has gained anything by that effort. 

But he wants to know whether God wants all men to 
be saved noiv. I answer that he says to his ministers : 
" Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemn- 
ed." Now I think God is sincere, and I think he 
wants men to come to him now. I think he evidently 
wants all men to come to him now, or he would not 
have sent an invitation to all. 

But we are told of Nebuchadnezzar's being turned 
out to grass, etc. Did he convince any body by that 
argument? Again, he says it requires punishment to 
enforce obedience. Before we are through perhaps I 
may show him that punishment is not that reformatory 
thing which he would like to have it be. However he 
touches that matter very lightly, I notice. A little 
more information right there would be desirable, brother 
Hughes. 

As to Rom. 8 : 5-9, he says that these Romans were 
raised from the dead in the moral sense, and were, there- 
fore, not under the control of the flesh. But they were 
"in the flesh" literally, were they not? And the argu- 



MR. CARPENTER^ FOURTH REJOINDER. 97 

ment of the brother was that sin largely, if not entirely, 
comes from the body, with its appetites and desires. 
But he says that they were raised from the dead in the 
moral sense. The brother will notice that in the same 
connection, Paul speaks of a physical resurrection : (v. 

•'But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead 
dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 
quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you." 

I should like to hear from him on that point. 

Of Dan. 9 : 24 we may have occasion to speak again. 

But he says, in reply to my argument that the will 
of God may be defeated, or that it is conditional, that 
in the ultimate sense God's will will not be defeated. 
How does he know? The same reasoning that shows 
that it may be defeated here, may be applied to show 
that it may be defeated in the next state. Certainly he 
has not proved that it will not be defeated there. 

I am asked whether I hold to the belief of a literal 
resurrection of the body. I turn to him and ask him : 
Do you deny the resurrection of the body ? It may be 
that he will be compelled logically to deny this and the 
atonement, the divinity of Christ, and kindred Bible 
teachings. 

Mr. Hughes : — I do not believe in the resurrection 
of the physical body ; but I would like my question an- 
swered. I would like to know whether he believes that 
the body will be raised ? 

Mr. Carpenter : — I believe there will be a resur- 
rection of the body — I do not say that all the particles 
that compose it at any particular time will be raised. 
But that there will be a real resurrection of the body 
from the grave. Christ's body was raised from the 
grave, and I believe our bodies will likewise be thus 
raised. 

Mr. Hughes : — Now I would like him to answer the 
other question : Do you believe that the body of the 
wicked will be punished in the future state? 

'9 



98 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Mr. Carpenter : — Well, I will say that as the soul 
and the body will be re-united, I suppose they will be 
punished together. The last we know of them they are 
together, and I suppose they will suffer together. 

[Objection was again made to this kind of interlocu- 
tion during the progress of an argument, and it was 
ruled out of order.] 

Mr. Carpenter resumes: — I want my friend to 
stick to the position he has taken here in his denial of 
the resurrection of the body. I shall hold him to that 
position in the progress of this discussion. 

He refers us to Christ's mission and ministry. That 
will come up directly. We will reach it in its turn. 
For the present, we will turn to the point at which we 
closed our last speech. I was proceeding with my fifth 
argument, viz : that the philosophy of this life contradicts 
TJniversalism. 

You will remember that I quoted several passages to 
show that man has the power of choice. But my 
brother argues that this will remain with him in the 
ultimate state ; . but intimates that, according to my doc- 
trine, it would have been better for God not to have 
made man at all than to have made him as he is, 
subject to the liabilities that are now around him. I 
can not say as much, though I do read of some that it 
had been better for them if they had not been born. 
(Matt. 26 : 24.) And Peter says (2 Pet. 2 : 21) : 

" For it had been better for them not to have known the way of 
righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy 
commandment delivered unto them." 

This world, however, as the only one of probation, 
comports well with the philosophy of life. Paul teaches 
us in Rom. 13:3, that rulers, in the exercise of their 
power to punish, " are not a terror to good works, but 
to the evil" So it is with future punishment. Those 
who are doing God's will are not complaining of his 
severity. What do I care about that terrible place of 



ME. CARPENTER'S FOURTH REJOINDER. 99 

punishment, if I am so living that I know I shall not 
get there ? Who complain, but the licentious, or those 
who would desire to live with some license here ? I 
refer this, not to my brother, but to his logic. The 
wicked don't like the law, as has been well expressed in 
the couplet : 

"No rogue e'er felt the halter draw 
With good opinion of the law." 

But shall we abrogate the penalties of the law for the 
encouragement of the wicked ? God forbid ! 
. I wish now to introduce some Scriptures to show that 
the promises of God are conditional, and that they re- 
quire something of men in order for their enjoyment. 
Overlooking the conditionality of the promises, is one of 
the grave errors of my brother's reasoning, as it is a 
common fault with the logic of all his brethren. I take 
here the decisive ground that all God's promises to 
man are conditional ; to this there is no exception. I 
read Numbers 14 : 30 : 

" Doubtless ye shall not come unto the land concerning which I 
sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the s<5n of Jephunneh, 
and Joshua the son of Nun." 

Now here you will observe that the Lord had sworn 
unto Israel that they should inherit the land of Canaan, 
and yet because Israel had rebelled against him, and had 
turned aside from the way of righteousness, he says 
"Doubtless ye shall not come into the land," showing 
that even the oath of God is conditional, when it re- 
fers to favors to be conferred upon man. I repeat here 
the broad declaration, that God never made an uncondi- 
tional promise to man. Even his oath to man, where 
man's interests are involved, is a conditional oath. I 
quote again Ezek. 33 : 13-20. 

" When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live ; if 
he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his 
righteousness shall not be remembered ; but for his iniquity that he 
hath committed, he shall die for it." 



100 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

But my brother says he shall not die for it. Which 
is true ? 

" Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die ; if 
he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right ; if the 
wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in 
the statutes of life, without committing iniquity ; he shall surely 
live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed 
shall be mentioned unto him : he hath done that which is lawful 
and right ; he shall surely live. Yet the children of thy people say, 
The way of the Lord is not equal : but as for them, their way is not 
equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and 
committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked 
turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he 
shall live thereby. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. 

ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways." 

Surely this is very plain. Notice the " if 8 " in this 
passage: "if the wicked restore the pledge," "if he 
give again that which .he hath robbed," " if he walk in 
the statutes of life, without committing iniquity," etc. 
But what, if not? Why the prophet says he shall 
" die for it." But my brother says he shall not " die 
for it." You can believe which of the two you choose. 

1 read again : 

" At what inst'ant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concern- 
ing a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it ; if 
that nation, against whom I have pronounced", turn from their evil, 
I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at 
what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a 
kingdom, to build, and to plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, that it 
obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I 
would benefit them." Jer. 18 : 7-10. 

Here it is again — " if they turn," " if it do evil in 
my sight," etc. You see the whole promise hinges on 
this key word " if " in this passage ; and expressed or 
understood in all God's promises. 

I read again, from Jonah 3 : 3—10 : 

" So Jonah arose, and went into Nineveh, according to the word 
of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three 
days' journey. And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's jour- 
ney, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be 
overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaim- 
ed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to 



MR. CARPENTER'S FOURTH REJOINDER. 101 

the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh ; and 
he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and cover- 
ed him in sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be pro- 
claimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king 
and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, 
taste any thing : let them not feed, nor drink water : but let man 
and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: 
yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the vio- 
lence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and 
repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way ; and 
God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; 

AND HE DID IT NOT." 

Here at the command of God, Jonah is sent to Nine- 
veh, and he proclaims : " Yet forty days, and Nineveh 
shall be overthrown" Here he declares what seems to 
be an unconditional decree of God, respecting Nineveh. 
But the people of the city proclaimed a fast, and man 
and beast were covered with sackcloth, and they cried 
mightily to God, saying : " Who can tell, if God will 
repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we 
perish not?" "And God saw their works, that they 
turned from their evil way " — that, as we say, they were 
converted — and God repented him of the evil that he 
had said that he would do unto them, and did it not" 

I quote again: Heb. 4: 1-11, in which we have the 
same lesson taught as in the other passages : 

" Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into 
his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was 
the gospel preached, as well as unto them : but the word preached 
did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard 
it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I 
have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest; although 
the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he 
spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God 
did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, 
If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that 
some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached 
entered not in because of unbelief: (Again he limiteth a certain 
day, saying in David, To-day, after so long a time ; as it is said, To- 
day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus 
(Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have 
spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the 



102 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

people of God. For lie that is entered into his rest, he also hath 
ceased from his own works, as God did from his.) Let us labor 
therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same ex- 
ample of unbelief." 

Here you see that we must " labor," to enter into that 
rest. So that without the labor we shall not have the 
rest; but we shall "fall." And as there were some 
who did not enter into the rest of Canaan — the first rest 
of promise; so there will be some that will not enter 
into the second, or heavenly rest. These promises of 
God to man are, therefore, conditional, and these condi- 
tions must be taken into the account in any argument 
based upon the promises of God. But this is precisely 
what my brother and his friends fail to do. 

I will now pass to some Scriptures, bearing upon the 
question before us, and relating to Salvation, Reconcil- 
iation, and " the gathering together of all things in 
Christ," upon which my opponent has based an argu- 
ment And I read first, Eph. 1 : 7-10 : 

" In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness 
of sins, according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath 
abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence ; having made 
known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleas- 
ure which he hath purposed in himself : that in the dispensation of 
the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christy 
both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him" 

It will be noticed that the apostle uses here in the 
phrase " gather together in one all things en Christo, 
(in Christ) not the preposition eis, which implies motion, 
or follows verbs of motion; but the preposition en, 
which refers to place ; so that the u gathering together " 
here is not a gathering together of all men as followers 
of Christ; but a gathering together into one condition 
or place of all things that are in Christ, which are in 
heaven and on earth. Here, too, " we " who are to be 
thus gathered, are said to have " in him," " redemption," 
and how? " Through his blood." And this " redemp- 
tion," secures to us " the forgiveness of sins." But I 
would like some one to tell me what use a Universalist 



103 

has for " redemption through his blood," in order to the 
" forgiveness of sins ? " I should like to know, if men 
are to suffer the full penalty of all their sins, as I 
understand my brother to teach, what use he has for 
forgiveness at all. 

We have the same truth set before us in Col. 1 : 13- 
22: 

" Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath 
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son : in whom we have 
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins : who is 
the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature : for 
by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in 
earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, 
or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for 
him : and he is before all things, and by him all things consist, and 
he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the 
first-born from the dead ; that in all things he might have the pre- 
eminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness 
dwell ; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by 
him to reconcile all things unto himself ; by him, I say, whether 
they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were 
sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet 
now hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death, to 
present you holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable, in his sight." 

Now, here we have deliverance, translation into the 
kingdom of his dear Son, redemption and forgiveness, 
all " through his blood," etc. This through the gos- 
pel, which, in a scriptural sense, "was preached to 
every creature under heaven." But this is not my 
brother's idea of " every creature" 

But then we read in the 23d verse : 

"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not 
moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and 
which was preached to every creature which is under heaven ; 
whereof I Paul am made a minister." 

Suppose, then, they did not " continue in the faith "; 
what then? Why, the promised blessings, without 
which they could not be holy and happy forever, would 
not be theirs. 

Here we have the gathering, or reconciling, of all 
things unto himself, that is, unto Christ, to which I have 



104 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

already referred when treating of Eph. 1, and its paral- 
lel, Col. 1 j but there is not a word in either about get- 
ting any body " into " Christ in my opponent's way, 
but only of gathering those who are already in him, and 
a reconciling through the blood of the cross. The same 
lesson is taught us in John 10: 16, where Christ speaks 
of the gathering in of the Gentile sheep, that there 
might be " one fold " and " one shepherd," that Paul 
gives us when, in Eph. 3 : 14-15, he teaches the unity 
of Christ's " family." Also when, in 2 Cor. 5 : 20, he 
prays that the Corinthians might be " reconciled to 
God." In Gal. 3 : 28, he teaches that in Christ " There 
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor 
free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one 
in Christ Jesus." {i. e. at that time.) They were already 
gathered by the preaching of the word, into him. 

The manner in which this gathering into Christ is 
eifected is indicated in such Scriptures as the following : 
I quote John 12: 32-33: 

" And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto 
me. (This he said, signifying what death he should die.)" 

" If I be lifted up "; that is, on the cross ; and my 

brother will notice that Mr. Cobb, in his comment on 

this passage, refers it to Christ's being on the cross. 

Again, John 8 : 28 : 

" Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Sorj of 
man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of my- 
self ; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." 

Again, John 3 : 14, 15 : 

" And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so 
must the Son of man be lifted up : that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have eternal life." 

Also John 6 : 44 : 

" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me 
draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day." 

Now these passages teach that men are drawn or per- 
suaded through the gospel in this world. And hence 
the commission, " Go and teach all nations "; " Go ye 



MR. CARPENTER'S FOURTH REJOINDER. 105 

into all the world, and preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture." But some will not be drawn to Christ by the 
word; and the Master says, " He that believeth not 
shall be damned." God draws men through the gos- 
pel, as Paul declares, Eomans 1 : 16 : 

" For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ : for it is the 
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew 
first, and also to the Greek." 

But you see it is the " power of God unto salvation " 
only to them " that believe." 

Matt. 1 : 21, " And she shall bring forth a son, and 
thou shalt call his name Jesus : for he shall save his 
people from their sins," is often quoted by Universalists 
to prove that Christ is a universal Saviour. But this 
does not follow. All are not " his people." According 
to Acts 15 : 14, God " visited" the " Gentiles, to take 
out of them a people for his name." Now when some 
were taken out, of course there were some left. The 
test of taking out is that we love him, and the assurance 
that we do this is that we " keep his commandments." 
1 John 2 : 3, 4. All are not morally, or primarily, or 
at all, as the world now is, " the people of God." Pe- 
ter (in 1 Pet. 2 : 10) speaks of those becoming the peo- 
ple of God, who had not been his people ; but who be- 
came " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood," etc. 
And this could not possibly have been if all had been 
before the people of God. 

The following passages are often collated with the 
foregoing, to prove the doctrine of Universal Salvation, 
viz., John 4 : 42 : 

" Now we believe, not because of thy saying : for we have heard 
him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour 
of the world." 

But this salvation is rendered possible only by obedi- 
ence to Christ. See John 13 : 17 : "If ye know these 
things, happy are ye if ye do them." On that princi- 
ple of obedience, indeed, God can, in view of the atone- 
ment of Christ, be "just, and the justifier of him 



106 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

which believeth in Jesus." In 1 John 4 : 13-15, we 
read : 

" Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because 
he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify- 
that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Who- 
soever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in 
him, and he in God." 

Now, here is the key to the whole passage : " Who- 
soever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God." In 
that confession there is a proper acceptance of Christ. 
And those who confess Christ are those in whom the 
promise will be fulfilled. 

Our friends also quote Rom. 6 : 7 : " For he that is 
dead is freed from sin." But we have already shown 
in what sense the apostle uses this word " dead " here ; 
and we may ask, Why do our Universalist friends 
quote this text, since they admit there is both sin and 
punishment beyond death f 

There is another argument that I wish to introduce ; 
but it is hardly necessary to speak of it at this late 
hour. It is my negative argument, No. VI., namely : 
The Scriptures are irreconcilable with the idea of a post- 
mortem gospel obedience ; and that the conditions under 
which sinners will be placed there will be unfavorable 
to their reformation. We throw these thoughts out 
now that our brother may have time to study over them 
until to-morrow. [Time expired.] 



ME. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — I am happy to be 
here this morning for the purpose of continuing the 
discussion affirmatively on the proposition before us on 
yesterday, viz: The Scriptures teach the final holiness 
and happiness of all mankind. 

A few words now in regard to brother Carpenter's 
last speech. He says God does not will with a will of 



107 

determination that sin shall be destroyed. Now I had 
always supposed that God was opposed to sin in his 
whole nature, and that he does will with a will of deter- 
mination the destruction of sin. And now I have a 
passage to quote on this subject, which I quoted before, 
but which has escaped my opponent's notice. It is 
1 John 3:8: 

" He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth 
from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifest- 
ed, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 

Now I understand " the works of the devil " to mean 
sin. And here it is said that the very purpose for which 
Christ was manifested was to destroy the works of the 
devil ; or, in other words, to destroy sin. If, then, he 
was manifested to destroy sin, I say sin will be destroy- 
ed, or he will be defeated. 

He made a little poetic quotation. It ended : 

" While the lamp holds out to burn, 
The vilest sinner may return." 

Apprehending some little difficulty there, he says he 
quoted that with " poetic license." I am afraid he is 
saying a good many things here in that way ! 

In regard to the declaration that God can save all 
men now, but will not, he says he does not exactly 
understand me. Now I said that God, by the exertion 
of his omnipotent power, could save all men immedi- 
ately ; but I said that this would be inconsistent with 
his plan — with his government, and with the moral 
agency he has given to man. I believe that, by the 
exertion of his power at one time, he miraculously con- 
vinced Saul of Tarsus, and he was converted ; and so 
he could deal with all men if he should so will. But 
he does not choose to do it, because it is not consistent 
with the purpose of his plan. His plan is that man, as 
a moral agent, shall be a co-worker with him, and God 
works according to this plan. It is true he works in 
men to will and to do, according to his good pleasure ; 



108 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

but they must work out their own salvation with tender 
and conscientious solicitude, and thereby unite with 
him in the work that he has purposed to do. (See Phil. 
2: 12, 13.) 

My brother endorses Mr. Campbell in regard to 
men learning by experience. If he endorses the prin- 
ciple there set forth by Mr. Campbell, that explains 
away all his opposition to the application of that prin- 
ciple to my argument, and to the argument founded on 
the nature of man and the attributes of God. And so 
that argument will stand. 

He refers to Eph. 1 : 8-10, and says Christ will 
gather his people into one body, and will finaliy gather 
them into one place. But then the text says that " in 
the dispensation of the fulness of the times, he might 
gather together in one all things in Christ, both 
which are in heaven and which are on earth ; even 
in HIM." And Paul says that is the purpose of God 
and the counsel of his own will. That is, it is God's will 
of determination, and so will finally be done. Paul 
says again, Col. 1 : 20 : 

"And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him 
to reconcile all things unto himself : by him, I say, whether they be 
things in earth, or things in heaven." 

Now he is to reconcile all things unto himself, 
having made peace through the blood of his cross, 
" whether they be things in earth, or things in heav- 
en." Now when that is done, all things being recon- 
ciled, all will be holy and happy. Let him notice, 
too, that the original word there is not heaven, but in 
the plural, heavens. 

He says that the living and the dead saints are to be 
gathered into one body, and that that is what Paul 
means here. But the Church on earth and in heaven is 
already one body, and so there can not be a future gath- 
ering of these in one in the sense of the brother. — 
" There is one body," says Paul. 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 109 

He says I emphasize the word " misery" as applied 
to future punishment, that I do not use the word "pun- 
ishment" and that I evidently want to make it as mis- 
erable as possible ! Now I do not think I need to do 
that. Brother Carpenter is " orthodox/' and he must 
not complain, for the orthodox hell is not simply a 
summer resort. But that we may see how this is, I 
will quote from Alexander Campbell, whom he en- 
dorses as a good author to quote from. It is in regard 
to " belligerent aliens " : — 

" In your lives are found every unclean and hateful spirit on this 
side of the fathomless gulf, the dark and rayless receptacle of fal- 
len and ruined intelligences, who, in endless and fruitless waitings, la- 
ment their own follies, and throughout an incessant night of despair 
anathematize themselves and their coadjutors in the perpetra- 
tion of their eternal suicide. " Christian System, p. 343. 

Now I submit that I have not made it any more 
" miserable " than Mr. Campbell has ! 

But he said something about Pres. Milligan and his 
"everlasting fire," and he wanted me to say how I 
knew that Bro. Milligan meant endless misery in what 
he said there. I answer, by the usage of the phrase 
by Mr. Milligan himself. Does he deny that Pres. 
Milligan meant that if his brethren did not amend their 
lives they would go to endless misery f I guess not. 

He complains about my saying that orthodoxy 
changes its views. Now, I have made no complaints 
of its changing its views ; for it is changing all the 
time towards tJniversalism. They used to believe in 
literal fire and damnation. They believed in a big lake 
of fire and brimstone into which men were cast and 
burned eternally. But that is all done away with now. 
Now they believe only in spiritual punishment. By 
the way, I think the preaching of TJniversalism has 
done them some good. If orthodoxy, as it used to be, 
was raised from the dead, it would not know itself in 
the new garments which they have prepared for it. We 



110 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

have been doing some good, after all, brother Carpen- 
ter. If we keep on, we will get you right in time. 

Well, he says he believes that these material bodies 
will be raised in the future world. I want you to note 
that, as we may have use for it at another time. 

As to the punishment of the body ; he says the last 
we know of them, (the body and soul), they are to- 
gether. Then I suppose we are to understand him that 
the body is to be punished. But I understand him 
that punishment in the future world is to be spiritual; 
and I would like to know how the material body can 
endure spiritual punishment f Will he explain ? 

But he resumes his argument on the philosophy of 
life, and says that all men have the power of choice. 
Now I do not deny that ; but will he allow that they 
have that power forever ? I believe there will be such 
an attraction drawing men — such an influence exerted 
upon them — that thev will all finally come to Christ. 
Christ says (John 12 : 32) : " And I, if I be lifted up 
from the earth, will draw all men unto me." 

He quotes what is said in Matt. 26 : 24, about Judas : 

" The Son of man goeth as it is written of him : but woe unto 
that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! it had been good 
for that man if he had not been born." 

But Dr. Adam Clarke says that was a proverbial ex- 
pression, simply meaning that the punishment *and mis- 
ery that came upon him was of such a degree and char- 
acter that such a thing might be said of him as it had 
been good for him if he had not been born, in view of 
his terrible sufferings. But that does not prove that he 
went to endless misery. Job and Jeremiah cursed the 
day they were born, but not because they expected to 
go to endless misery. Job 3 : 1-13; Jer. 20: 14-18. 

He says none favor the doctrines of Universalism 
but those who want license to sin. I do not know 
whether he means by that all Universalists, or all those 
who sympathize with Uniyersalist doctrine. Does he 



in 

mean such men as Dr. Dick, Dr. Foster, Dr. Channing, 
and others, as pure as have ever lived, who have re- 
volted from the doctrine of an endless hell ? Let him 
explain himself. I would like to know why we have 
all these innuendoes thrown out here in regard to the 
disposition and character of Universal ists. I do not 
like that pharisaic feeling Bro. Carpenter seems to have 
in him, " We are better than you, because we believe in 
an eternal hell ! " That kind of spirit does not look 
well in any man, does it ? 

The greatest objection he has to us is we " deny the 
conditionally of salvation." I should like to know 
whether he really believes in the conditionality of sal- 
vation. He says he does — he says the promises of God 
are all conditional ; that the oath of God, when it refers 
to things promised to men, is conditional — that there is 
not a single unconditional promise in all the Bible. 

Now at one time in this discussion he said he wanted 
open-handed work — he wanted no skulking in theolog- 
ical thickets and jungles — he did not want to get lost 
in the mazes of metaphysical disquisitions. And yet 
he is fond of getting in the jungles himself. There is 
one of these thickets I have been trying to get him out 
of all the way through. Now, perhaps if I shell that 
jungle, and drop in a few red-hot shot for awhile, I 
may yet drive him out. He believes now in a condi- 
tional salvation. He won't like to hear it, I know; 
but the heathen world are dying unsaved. Now he 
says they are not in this question ; but I propose to try 
his principles by this test. And I ask him how those 
millions upon millions of heathen are to be saved in 
the future world, they having failed of the opportunity 
to comply with the conditions of salvation in this 
world? He must, if he saves them, make many mil- 
lions of exceptions to his own rule, i. e., by allowing 
them to be saved unconditionally, or else he must allow 
them opportunity of complying in the future world. 



112 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Now I hold that the heathen are to be saved condition- 
ally. There is to be an opportunity for them to be 
saved hereafter. Brother Carpenter's theory consigns 
the whole heathen world to endless misery. He says 
the gospel is to be preached to "every creature/' and 
that " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, 
and he that believeth not shall be damned." Now, if 
the salvation of the gospel be conditional to all men, 
then the heathen can not be saved, because they have 
not received the gospel. But if all the heathen are to 
be saved unconditionally, then the preaching of the 
gospel to them will be the occasion of damning a great 
many millions of them, on my brother's theory. And 
so it makes the gospel not a gospel of salvation, but of 
damnation to a great majority of the race. That is one 
of the red-hot shot I wanted to drop into brother 
Carpenter's thicket. 

I will now introduce my eighth argument : 

VIII. The Abrahamic Promise. 

" Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy coun- 
try, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land 
that I will shew thee : and I will make of thee a great nation, and I 
will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a 
blessing : and I will bless them that bless thee : and curse him that 
curseth thee : and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 
Gen. 12: 1-3. 

" And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven 
the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, 
for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, 
thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying 
I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand 
which is upon the sea shore : and thy seed shall possess the gate of 
his enemies: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed : because thou hast obeyed my voice." Gen. 22 ; 15-18. 

" Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which 
God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed 
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, 
having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning 
away every one of you from his iniquities." Acts 3 : 25, 26. 

1. The promise is universal in its terms. It is " all 



113 

nations," " all families," all the kindreds of the earth." 
No individual ever lived, but what was of some na- 
tion, family, or kindred. This language, varied as it is, 
sets forth the most complete universality. The promise 
is as universal as the spirit of the gospel ; as universal 
as God's love which embraces the entire race of man- 
kind. 

2. The seed of Abraham is Christ; the medium 
through which the promised blessing is to be conferred. 

" Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He 
saith not, And to seeds, as -of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, 
which is Christ." Gal. 3 : 16. 

3. The blessing promised includes all the benefits 
conferred on man through Christ in this world and the 
future. It embraces all the gospel does. Paul calls it 
the gospel. " And the Scripture, foreseeing that God 
would justify the heathen through faith, preached before 
the gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations 
be blessed." Gal. 3 : 8. The gospel includes the res- 
urrection of the dead to a future life and immortality. 
Indeed, the resurrection is the crowning excellence of 
the gospel. Without it the gospel would not be com- 
plete ; it would be be no gospel. " But if there be no 
resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen ; and 
if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and 
your faith is also vain." 1 Cor. 15 : 13, 14. 

4. It includes salvation from sin, in (1) justification 
by faith : 

" Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are 
the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, forseeing that God 
would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they 
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal. 3 : 7-9. 

(2) A reformation of life — a "turning away from 

iniquities . 

" Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which 
God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed 
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, 

8 



114 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away 
every one of you from his iniquities." Acts 3 : 25, 26. 

When, therefore, the promise is completely fulfilled, 
all mankind will be raised from the dead to life and 
immortality, saved from sin, and consequently holy 
and happy. But this work can not be fully consum- 
mated in this life. Thousands of millions of earth's 
inhabitants have, in this short life, never heard of 
Christ or his gospel. And none are completely saved 
in this life. We may, therefore, look to the resurrec- 
ion state for a complete fulfillment of this promise. 

5. I proceed to prove, then, that the promise itself 
includes the resurrection of the dead, and that state 
where it can and will be fulfilled. 

" And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise 
made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve 
tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For 
which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why 
should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should 
raise the dead ? " Acts 26 : 6-8. 

" Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and 
steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail : whither the 
forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest for ever 
after the order of Melchisedec." Heb. 6 : 19, 20. 

The hope of the promise includes the resurrection, 
enters to that within the vail, where Christ is — the res- 
urrection state. 

6. The resurrection, being a part of the blessing 
promised, the resurrection itself must be a blessing to all 
the nations of the earth, and not an endless curse to 
any part of mankind. 

Will the promise be fulfilled ? I argue that it will, 
as surely as that God can not lie. 

1. It must be, or else Abraham, and all those who 
have believed with him, had no foundation for their 
faith, and believed a falsehood. 

" Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him 
for righteousness." Gal. 3:6. 

" He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief : but 
was strong in faith, giving glory to God ; and being fully persuaded, 



115 

that what lie had promised, he was able also to perform." Rom. 4 : 
20, 21. 

Abraham believed God. He believed what God had 
promised he was able to perform. And now all of the 
same faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. 3 : 
9. But what did he believe ? He believed that in his 
seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. 
And if all are not eventually thus blessed, he believed 
that which is not true. 

2. God has confirmed his promise with an oath. 

"For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could 
swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I 
will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after 
he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily 
swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an 
end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew 
unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirm- 
ed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was 
impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who 
have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us : which 
hope we have as an anchor to the soul, both sure and steadfast, and 
which entereth into that within the vail : whither the forerunner is 
for us entered, evei* Jesus, made a high priest for ever after the order 
of Melchisedec." Heb. 6 : 13-20. 

The apostle declares the immutability of God's coun- 
sel God confirms it by an oath, in which he swears by 
himself, because he could swear by no greater; that 
by tivo immutable things — God's promise and his oath of 
confirmation — in which it is impossible for God to lie, 
we might have strong consolation, a sure and steadfast 
hope, as an anchor to the soul, reaching to that with- 
in the vail, whither the forerunner hath for us entered. 
The promise is sure. 

3. God himself speaks of it as a matter fixed in the 
counsels of heaven. " And the Lord said, Shall I hide 
from Abraham that thing which I do ; seeing that 
Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty na- 
tion, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in 
him?" Gen. 18 : 17, 18. There is no uncertainty here. 



116 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

It is not here simply a promise, but a declaration of 
that which should surely come to pass. 

4. The law, with all its penalties, can not hinder its 
accomplishment. 

" And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of 
God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, can not disannul, that it should make the promise of none 
effect." Gal. 3: 17. 

5. The unbelief of man can not defeat it. 

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make 
the faith of God without effect ? God forbid : yea, let God be true, 
but every man a liar ; as it is written, That thou mightest be justifi- 
ed in thy sayings, and mighest overcome when thou art judged." 
Rom. 3 : 3, 4. 

"If we believed not, yet he abideth faithful: he can not deny 
himself." 2 Tim. 2 : 13. 

If this be a conditional promise, and made to depend 
on conditions to be performed by man in this life only 
for its fulfillment, then controlling power is not in 
God's hand ; and its fulfillment is beyond his power ; 
and he is not able to fulfill as Abraham believed. 

6. Christ is the grand depository and means for 
blessing ; and God, according to his purpose and grace, 
has given us salvation and eternal life in Christ Jesus 
before the times of the ages. 

" Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not ac- 
cording to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, 
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began : but 
is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
who hath abolished death, und hath brought life and immortality 
to light through the gospel." 2 Tim. 1 : 9, 10. 

" In hope of eternal life, which God, that can not lie, promised 
before the world began ; but hath in due times manifested his word 
through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the 
commandment of God our Saviour." Titus 1 : 2, 3. 

" If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater : 
for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself : 
he that believeth not God hafti made him a liar ; because he believ- 
eth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, 
that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 



ME. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 117 

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of 
God hath not life." 1 Jno. 5 : 9-12. 

To believe this, is to believe the record God has given 
us of his Son. To refuse to believe it, is to make God 
a liar. 

It is, then, a clear case. The promise will be ful- 
filled. Our belief, or unbelief, can not affect the truth 
of the record. It was a verity from everlasting, and to 
everlasting it must remain a verity. And we are re- 
quired to believe it, not to make it true, but because it 
is true I And so soon as it is believed the reality of the 
promise is verified. The believer enters into an enjoy- 
ment of its fruition ; receives the life held in reserva- 
tion for him, and the " earnest of the final redemption 
of the purchased possession." 

IX. Christ to Reconcile all to God. 

" For the love of Christ constraineth us : because we thus judge, 
that if one died for all, then were all dead : and that he died for all, 
that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, 
hut unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore 
henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have 
known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no 
more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature : old 
things are passed away ; behold, all things are become new. And 
all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus 
Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation : to wit, 
that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not im- 
puting their trespasses unto them: and hath committed unto 
us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for 
Christ, as though God did beseech you by us : we pray you in Christ's 
stead, be ye reconciled to God, For he hath made him to be sin for 
us, who knew no sin : that we might be made the righteousness of 
God in him." 2 Cor. 5 : 14-21. 

" Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath 
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son : in whom we have 
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins : who is 
the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature : for 
by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in 
earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, 
or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for 
him : and he is before all things, and by him all things consist : and 
he is the head of the body, the church : who is the beginning, the 
firstborn from the dead : that in all things he might have the pre- 



118 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

eminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness 
dwell : and, having made peace through the blood of his cress, by 
him to reconcile all things unto himself: by him, I say, whether 
they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were 
sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet 
now hath he reconciled." Col. 1 : 13-21. 

1. All things in the heavens and in the earth were 
created by Christ ; by him, and for him. 

2. He died to reconcile all. Died for all — for all 
universally — for that all were dead. 

3. All that are reconciled are saved; saved by the 
" word of reconciliation ;" are " in Christ, new crea- 
tures ;" and " live unto Christ." 

4. This reconciliation is to be universal. It is the 
" reconciliation of the Avorld ;" " of all things, whether 
they be things in earth, or things in the heavens." 

5. The work of reconciliation extends to the future 
state. To the " things (beings) in the heavens." 

Brother Carpenter's anxious inquiry concerning the 
preaching of the gospel to the dead, I have answered as 
follows : 

I have shown that Christ's rule and dominion is over 
the dead. " He is Lord of the dead and the living." 

I have shown that his ministry extends to the future 
state. " He went and preached to the spirits in prison. 19 
" For for this cause . was the gospel preached to them 
that are dead." 

I have shown that the object of this preaching to the 
dead is their salvation. That they might be under the 
same law and rule as men in the flesh. "That they 
might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live 
according to God in the spirit." 

I have further shown that the object of Christ's mis- 
sion and ministry is to " gather together in one all 
things in Christ;" "to reconcile all things to God, 
whether they be things in earth or things (beings) in the 
heavens," by quotations from Eph. 1 : 9-11, and Col. 
1:19, 20. My brother will please note that in these 



119 

quotations, the word rendered heaven is in the plural, 
and should be rendered heavens. He admits that these 
passages are parallel. He must admit, then, that there 
is a work of gathering together in Christ, a reconciling 
of men to God, in the heavens. He must admit, then, 
that the gathering together in Christ is of those not 
in Christ, a reconciling of those unreconciled. 

His argument on Eph. 1 : 9-11, is an admission that 
the pleasure and will of God is one of purpose, a will 
of determination. Alexander Campbell says : 

" From all these sayings and allusions (in Eph. 1 : 3-12), we 
must trace the constitution of this kingdom into eternity — before 
time began. We must date it from everlasting, and resolve it into the 
absolute, gracious will of the eternal God." Christian System, p, 153. 

The conclusion must be that the Saviour's mission 
and ministry to the dead and the living will be a suc- 
cess, or God's absolute will fails. [Time expired.] 

ME. CAEPENTER'S FIFTH EEJOINDEE. 

Brethren Moderators : — I am gratified to see my 
brother assume to be in such a pleasant mood this 
morning. I thought perhaps he would be a little crab- 
bed — a little sore — as if he had had bad dreams in the 
night or something of that sort, after his yesterday's 
experience. But I am glad he is in such good spirits ; 
for though I expect to defeat him, of course, yet I do 
not want to put him in torment yet — indeed not at all. 
Though he did appear a little nervous yesterday after- 
noon. He evidently felt his defeat. 

I warned you yesterday that he would introduce pass- 
ages not applicable to the question in hand — passages 
applying, perhaps, to Christians or the Jews, and then 
he would apply them to the whole human race ; and so, 
sure enough, he quotes from Paul where he says : " We 
have redemption through his blood, even the forgive- 
ness of sins," Col. 1 : 14 ; " For the love of Christ 
constraineth us, because we thus judge/' 2 Cor. 5: 



120 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

14-16. "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after 
the flesh," etc. And he says "we" here includes all. 
But to whom does the " WE " apply ? Let him turn to 
the beginning of these epistles and see. He takes 
words that apply to Christians and applies them to all 
men. And that policy is common with Universalists. 
So John 17 : 20 refers only to those who believe, in 
this world, through the preaching of the gospel. 

My brother rambles over the Scriptures, culling a 
passage here and another there, without showing that 
there is any relation between the Scriptures quoted and 
the point for which he uses them, and then he expects, 
I suppose, that I will follow and set that all right! 
But 1 am under no obligation to do this. He quotes, 
"God is love/' and uses that to show that all will be 
saved, without observing that while God is now love, 
sin and suffering nevertheless exist. He quotes that 
" Christ will gather all things in one, of things in heav- 
en and things in the earth;" and then claims that all 
people, of all kinds and classes, will be gathered, not in, 
but into Christ ! 

I have already shown that Paul is arguing concerning 
the bringing under one head, even Christ, both righteous 
Jews and righteous Gentiles, possibly including dead 
saints along with living saints, but that the passage 
necessarily includes only those who are in Christ in the 
sense of being in a saved state. The passage from 
Collosians is of the same class. Neither of them tend 
to prove my brother's proposition. In my interpreta- 
tion of the passage I am in perfect harmony with Cony- 
beare and Howson, Clarke, Barnes, and commentators 
generally. 

Indeed, my opponent seems to rely upon such pass- 
ages as are irrelevant to the wicked, and hence that have 
no reference whatever to the proposition in hand. I 
say here, that the brother has not yet, in all this debate, 
reached the real point of his proposition. If only the 



ME. CARPENTER^ FIFTH REJOINDER. 121 

word all occurs, he thinks it a sweet morsel. The prop- 
osition is, " The Scriptures teach the final holiness and 
happiness of all mankind. " And I say that the word 
"final" is especially the key word of that proposi- 
tion. It is true that " all " is an important word in 
this connection. But I said I would make the word 
"final" the test word in this discussion, and that if he 
would show that a state of holiness and happiness is 
the final state of those who die in willful disobedience 
to the gospel, in the sense of there being no other suc- 
ceeding state, I would concede all the rest. But he has 
utterly failed to even make a serious attempt in that 
direction, but contents himself by raising false issues, 
and by introducing irrelevant proofs. 

He admits that man is a free agent, and that his will 
is absolute, so far as that is concerned. In admitting 
this he destroys his own argument upon the will of 
God. But now, will he tell us how God's will can be 
absolute and man be a free agent in the sense that he 
claims? If man can resist the will of God here, can 
he not do it over there ? Can there be two absolute 
wills concerning the same thing? Can the wills of 
both God and man be absolute in this matter? And 
if man resists the will of God over there at all, how 
can he prove that he will not resist it endlessly? I 
want him to clear up that matter if he can. I do 
not think that he will try to show that there are two 
absolute wills. I think I know what turn he will take. 
I suppose he will say that God will whip the wicked 
into obedience in some way. But why is not this done 
now? But my brother acknowledged that "sin came 
into the world, God not willing it. ,} This surrenders the 
whole issue on the will question. 

But his position, perhaps, implies that they are pun- 
ished there until they get better. If so, then punish- 
ment will be their Saviour, not Christ. But where is he 
going to put them till they yield ? Is he going to find 



122 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

a hell for them there, to serve as a kind of reform 
school ? For he, too, admits future punishment. And 
when is he going to have them reform ? He will make 
a great ado, I suspect, when we shall show that God 
will command the angels to gather out of his kingdom 
all that offend, and put them with all the liars, thieves, 
and other offscourings of humanity. They will have a 
fine time " reforming " in that kind of company ! Or 
will he take the wicked right to heaven, and convert it 
into a reform school ? Or is he going to find a hell for 
them somewhere ? There must be some place for them 
till they " reform." He must do one or the other, and 
I want to know what he is going to do with them. 

He comes out at last on preaching the gospel in the 
other world, and he attempts to prove it, as we anticipat- 
ed and warned you, by Christ's preaching to the spirits 
in prison. (1 Pet. 3: 19.) Now if I should admit 
that Christ preached to the Antediluvians after death, 
and in the other world, which I do not, how will he 
prove that they all accepted his preaching ? They did 
not accept Noah's preaching in this life, though he 
preached to them 120 years. It is in order now for 
him to show that they all accepted Christ's preaching in 
the other world, if indeed he preached to them there. 
He must prove that before the passage will do him any 
good. I have read of some coming out of their graves 
at the resurrection of Christ, but I have never learned 
that they were the Antediluvians, and I think they were 
not. But then, if he did preach to them and if they 
accepted his preaching, then the question will come up 
whether they might not fall again if they are free 
agents, according to his theory. And he can not prove 
that until he settles the dispute about that "final state" 
which he says has nothing other or different beyond it. 
And he must remember that the body of commentators 
are agreed that preaching to the spirits in prison refers 
back to the preaching of Noah before the Flood. 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIFTH REJOINDER. 123 

But our attention is again directed to the " gathering 
of all things in Christ." Now, I read in the context of 
the passage from Col. 1 : 12-14: 

" Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be 
partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light : who hath deliv- 
ered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the 
kingdom of his dear Son : in whom we have redemption through his blood, 
even the forgiveness of sins. 

Now here I want to know what use he has for " the 
blood of Christ f " I want to know what he means by 
"forgiveness of sins f " Then the apostle continues : 

" Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every 
creature : for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and 
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or 
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by 
him, and for him : and he is before all things, and by him all things 
consist. And he is the head of the body, the church : who is the 
beginning, the firstborn from the dead ; that in all things he might 
have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father that in him 
should all fulness dwell ; and having made peace through the blood 
of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself: by him, I say, 
whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, 
that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked 
works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through 
death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in 
his sight : if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be 
not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, 
and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven ; 
whereof I Paul am made a minister." (vv. 15-23.) 

It is clear that those who are to be gathered together 
in one, in (not into) Christ, are those who are described 
as having been "translated into the kingdom of God's 
dear Son," and who have " redemption in his blood even 
the forgiveness of sins, who are reconciled through 
Christ's blood." Then it all depends upon the " IF " 
of the 23d verse. " If ye continue in the faith," etc. 
They might not a continue in the faith," and then there 
would be no " redemption " for them, and no gathering 
together in Christ. The brother has not met the argu- 
ment in relation to the use of those prepositions in these 
passages ; and you will remember that the persons there 



124 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

described as gathered in Christ are said to be such as 
had " first trusted in Christ/ 7 and had been " sealed 
with that Holy Spirit of promise." (See Eph. 1 : 12, 
13.) And so, of course, there were some not sealed, 
and who, therefore, could not be gathered in him. In 
the sense of Col. 1 : 20, 1 deny that all things in heaven 
and in earth were then gathered into Christ. 

I have already shown, from John 12: 32; 8: 28; 
3 : 14, 15 ; 6 : 44, and other passages, the way in which 
men, under the gospel, are to be gathered into Christ, 
and I have shown that this salvation is made possible 
only by obedience on the part of such as become re- 
sponsible because of opportunities. Infants and idiots 
have nothing to obey. 

He drags in the heathen, as though they were in the 
question. But did not he himself tell us that " man's 
responsibility necessitates the idea of his knoicing the 
law, and his ability to obey it ? " " Out of thy own 
mouth," my brother, " I condemn thee ! " 

He introduces Acts 3 : 26. Let me read now from 
the context, beginning at the 20th verse : 

" And lie shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached un- 
to you-: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution 
of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy 
prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the 
fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of 
your brethren, like unto me: him shall ye hear in all things what- 
soever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every 
soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from 
among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and 
those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise fore- 
told of these days." 

Now, whether it be a temporal or a spiritual salva- 
tion spoken of here, it matters not ; for, 1st. In regard 
to the promised prophet, he said, " Him shall ye 
hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." 
But did they all hear Christ? Now the question is, 
whether Moses spoke the truth or not, according to 
Elder H.'s theory of exegesis. If he spoke the truth. 



125 

and my brother is correct, then they were bound to 
hear Christ, of whom he spoke, every one of them. 
But, 2d. The apostle who made the quotation from 
Moses, added : " And it shall come to pass, that every 
soul which will not hear that Prophet, shall be de- 
stroyed from among the people." And this destroy- 
ing was one of the things spoken of by the prophets. 
There were some, then, that would not hear, and who 
were to be destroyed. Now why this limiting clause, 
" by the prophets," if at the " restitution of all things," 
spoken of in the 24th verse, or at any time, all are to 
be restored? Why, then, should he speak of some 
who are to be destroyed — cut off? And you will notice 
that this " restitution of all things " is to take place at 
the coming of Christ, which, our Universalist friends 
tell us, was at the destruction of Jerusalem ! If so, we 
are out. How do our friends like their own logic ? 

Again, I make this remark in reference to his favor- 
ite word "all," that perhaps it is not used in the abso- 
lute sense, as including all men, a mathematical whole, 
anywhere in the Bible. Certainly it is very seldom 
thus used. I quote now some passages in which this 
term is used. I read 2 Chron. 32 : 22, 23 : 

" Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusa- 
lem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from 
the hand of all other, and guided them on every side. And many 
brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah 
king of Judah; so that he was magnified in the sight of all na- 
tions from thenceforth." 

Now, does this " all " include a mathematical whole ? 
I presume there were nations then existing that had 
never heard of Hezekiah. But it is said that he was 
" magnified in the sight of all nations." " All nations 
compassed me about ; but in the name of the Lord will 
I destroy them." Ps. 118 : 10. Did all nations, in- 
cluding all the people, men, women, and children, come 
up against David ? If so, no wonder he was in trouble. 

"That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health 



126 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God : let all the 
people praise thee. Oh! let the nations be glad and sing for joy: 
for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations 
upon earth. Selah. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the 
people praise thee." Psa. 67 : 2-5. 

" The Lord hath made known his salvation : his righteousness 
hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen. He hath re- 
membered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all 
the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God." Psa. 98 : 2, 
3. 

But did this include all of the heathen, idiots, infants, 
all of all places and all time ? 

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the 
city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished : 
and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of 
the people shall not be cut off from the city." Zech. 14 : 2. 

But did this, or shall it ever, include all people ? Did 
Titus have all nations, in my brother's use of the term, 
and every individual of the race, gathered at Jerusa- 
lem? for it is nothing for my brother's argument to 
show that these terms include all nations, but he must 
show that they refer to every individual of all the na- 
tions. It must include every individual of the race; 
otherwise his argument fails. Now, were the old men, 
the women, the cripples, the young children, gathered 
at Jerusalem, fighting those Jews ? And yet this is the 
emphasis my brother puts on these phrases, " all na- 
tions," " all flesh," etc. 

" And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house 
shall be called, of all nations, the house of prayer? but ye have 
made it a den of thieves." Mark 11 : 17. - 

But surely there were nations then existing that never 
had heard of that house, as there are those now living 
that have never heard of the name of Christ. 

" Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill 
you : and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." Matt. 
24: 9. 

But surely the brethren did not hate them. Nor do 

we, or the majority of our nation, hate them. Will he 



REJOINDEE. 127 

tell us when, according to his interpretation of "all 
nations/' this has been true ? 

To these Scriptures, I might add also as references 
for a similar use of these phrases, 1 Sam. 2 : 22 ; 2 Sam. 
18: 17; 1 Kings 3: 28; 8: 62; 13: 14; 1 Chron. 11: 
4; Kom. 10: 1-14; Dan. 7: 14; Phil. 3 : 1-14, etc. 
These are sufficient to show that in the Scriptures a all 
nations," " all people," " ends of the earth," " every 
creature," "all flesh," etc., ordinarily refer only to a 
great number of those living at the time mentioned. 
And in no instance do they include a mathematical 
whole. And I think this will suffice for all the " alls" 
my opponent may adduce. 

But my brother introduces the Abrahamic covenant, 
and quotes Gen. 12: 1-3; and 22: 15-18. And he 
says this promise is universal, it includes Christ, and all 
the blessings flowing from Christ, such as justification 
from sin, the resurrection, and eternal life, and there- 
fore all men will be saved. But how is this? Abra- 
ham himself was blessed because he obeyed God. Gen. 
26: 5. Paul says: Gal. 3: 8, 9: 

"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the hea- 
then through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, 
In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they wljich be of faith 
are blessed with faithful Abraham." 

Then they which be " of faith," and no others, 
mind you, are blest. But my brother says the heathen 
are going to have this faith ; and he wants me to come 
out of the thicket. 

Ah, he wants to get me into the thickets, that I may 
spend my time on something that is not in our proposi- 
tion. I said the heathen were not in the proposition, 
and that when they were put in, then I would discuss 
that matter with him. And I now say I do not pro- 
pose to affirm or deny on that question. But he says 
the heathen are to go to heaven without faith, and are 
to get this faith there. Let him prove this if he can. 



128 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

How is any body going to get this faith there ? Who 
is going to preach to them there? But all nations are 
to be blessed in Abraham. Very well ; but how ? 
Have all nations, including all individuals, this faith 
of which Paul speaks ? Paul says " all have not faith. " 
2 Thes. 3 : 2. Do " all nations" here include all indi- 
viduals? " Go and teach all nations " covers the whole 
ground. But my brother does not preach to idiots or 
infants, although they are included in "all nations." 
These blessings, my brother, are offered to all for 
whom the commission was designed ; but all do not 
accept of them — all do not believe — and therefore all 
are not saved. Elias (John) was to " restore all things." 
(Matt. 17: 11.) But did John "restore" all men, in 
the Universalist sense? Moses said they should all 
hear the prophet that was to come ; but they did not all 
hear, and some were destroyed. But all that hear shall 
be saved. Some disbelieve and are damned. (Mark 
16 : 16.) We have answered this sufficiently for the 
present. 

The Abrahamic covenant included nothing not found 
in the gospel ; and this is conditioned, as to its bless- 
ings, upon faith and obedience in this life. " Go into 
all the (this) ivorld and preach the gospel," said Jesus. 
The law was to the Jews only, but the gospel to all 
nations. This was the promise to Abraham. But, 
mark you, the blessings of the gospel are all condi- 
tional, as we have shown and will further prove. 

Having now noticed everything I wish to at this 
time in my opponent's speech, I will introduce my next 
argument, already referred to on yesterday. I state it 
thus: 

VI. The Scriptures are Irreconcilable with 

THE IDEA OF A PoST-MORTEM GOSPEL OBEDIENCE. 

And I argue this, first, from the fact that sinners will 
not be under favorable conditions in that darkness into 



129 

which they will be plunged, whether of locality or of 
ignorance. 

" Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, 
ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his an- 
gels." Matt. 25 : 41. 

" For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and 
murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." 
Eev. 22 : 15. 

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire ; so shall 
it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his 
angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that of- 
fend, and them which do iniquity ; and he shall cast them into a 
furnace of fire ; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 
13 : 40-42. 

" So shall it be at the end of the world : the angels shall come 
forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them 
into the furnace of fire ; there shall be wailing and gnashing of 
teeth." Matt. 13 : 49, 50. 

" And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a 
man which had not on a wedding garment : and he saith unto him, 
Friend, how earnest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? 
And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind 
him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer 
darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 22 : 
11-13. 

" And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness ; there 
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 25: 30. 

Surely they will be in bad company to reform when 
they will be with " murderers/' " whoremongers/' 
" adulterers/' etc.; and worse than that when they are 
with " the devil and his angels ! " When they are 
separated from the good, and are permitted to associ- 
ate only with the bad. Mark, the " tares" are the 
children of the wicked one, not simply follies of char- 
acter. (Matt. 13: 38.) 

Again, they will be banished from Christ, and CAN 
NOT come to him : 

"Then said Jesus again unto them, (the unbelieving Jews,) I go 
my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins ; whither I 
go, ye cannot come." John, 8 : 21. 

But I shall be told here that he said to the disci- 
ples that they could not follow him either. But what 
9 



130 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

he told them was that they could not come now ; but 
should come afterwards : 

" Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou ? Jesus 
answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now ; but thou 
shalt follow me afterwards." John 13 : 36. 

And you will notice that he said to the Jews, as a 
reason why they could not come to him, that they 
should " die in their sins." 

Moreover, the banishment of the wicked from 
Christ is to be everlasting. I quote : 

" And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus 
shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire 
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the 
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
of his power ; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to 
be admired in all them that believe." 2 Thes. 1 : 7-10. 

Now Christ says " Come ! " then, in " the great and 
terrible day of the Lord," he will say " Depart ! " 

Moreover, some, even in this life, become so that 
it is "impossible " to " renew them : " 

" For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and 
have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the 
Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers 
of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again 
unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God 
afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb. 6 : 4-6. 

And of others it is said that they have " eyes full of 
adultery," and that they " can not cease from sin." 
(2 Peter, 2 : 14.) 

Now how can those be renewed of whom it is said 
that their renewal is " impossible ? " And how can 
they be made " finally holy and happy " that u can not 
cease from sin f " But it may be claimed that these 
Scriptures may refer to this life. This we deny; but 
if we grant it, it avails my brother nothing ; for if God 
deals thus with sinners in the day of his grace, how 
will it be with them when " the harvest is past and the 
summer is ended ?" Ah, my friends, with Paul, 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 131 

"Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." 
2 Cor. 5 : 11. 

My friend refers to the poetry I quoted, and wants 
to know if I endorse it. I told him I quoted poetry 
with poetic license, and I will now say that our people, 
so far from approving of the sentiment, as expressed 
in the last line, have changed it so that it stands in 
our hymn-book this way : a Oh, hasten sinner, to re- 
turn." I quoted it for the sentiment of its first coup- 
let, and finished the verse as Dr. Watts composed it. 
The word " vilest," we don't use here. 

And now I ask again that the audience should no- 
tice carefully the proof- texts that my brother intro- 
duces in support of his proposition. I think you will 
see that many of them have no relation to his propo- 
sition. His proposition, you know, is that "the 
Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of all 
mankind." But many of his quotations have no 
reference whatever to the question. His arguments 
based upon his own "I believes," " I don't thinks," 
"I have showns," "I will proves," and such like as- 
severations, which, though they seem to be his main re- 
liance, I am sure I will not be expected to answer. 
This audience, Bro. Hughes, have a right to expect of 
you more than your own ipse dixit, with the variations 
of false issues and misapplications of Scriptures, and 
the language of brethren Milligan and Campbell 
wrung in as changes. They expect you to meet the 
true issue. [Time expired.] 

ME. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 

Sirs Moderators: — I never perpetrated such an 
argument as the brother states at the clcse of his 
speech. 

He seems to be afraid of my temper. I don't think 
he need to be. You know he commenced talking here 



134 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

forbids that idea. "Christ was put to death in flesh, but 
made alive in spirit, in which also he went and 
preached to the spirits in prison, who were formerly 
disobedient/' etc. Christ was the preacher, not Noah. 
It was in his own Spirit he went and preached to the 
spirits in prison, and not by means of the Holy Spirit 
preaching through Noah before the Flood. I call his 
attention to the order of events as laid down by the 
Apostle here also : 1. Christ was put to death in flesh. 
2. He was made alive in spirit — his own spirit. 3. He 
went and preached to the spirits in prison — the spirits 
of those who were disobedient in the times of Noah. 
The disobedience was in the times of Noah, but not the 
preaching of Christ here mentioned. But if they 
neither could or would accept the gospel, why the 
preaching to them? When Christ ascended from 
hades, he f *' led captivity captive ; " in his train was a 
multitude of captives. Eph. 4 : 8-10. 

He wants to know what I want with the blood of 
Christ, the doctrine of forgiveness, etc. Now when I 
asked him about the heathen, he was terribly mum, 
and I might pursue the same course with regard to his 
enquiries. I might say, that is not in the question. 

But I have quoted passages here where it is said 
that " he hath made peace through the blood of his 
cross " — that he is to reconcile all things unto himself 
— and I showed that the work had been commenced — 
that some had been reconciled, and I took the ground 
that all would finally be reconciled. I admitted that 
some might fall away here, but not finally, for this 
work is to progress until all are reconciled. I showed 
that this was God's pleasure and the counsel of his will, 
and therefore that it would be done. I suppose my 
opponent will not contend that there is a literal appli- 
cation of the blood of Christ to the heart in the forgive- 
ness of sins. Certainly I do not. It is through faith 
in his blood that there is remission of sins. The blood 



ME. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 133 

know whether he did not create all things. I want 
to know if there were none created but Christians or 
Jews ! But if he created u all things," referring to 
mankind comprehensively, then he will reconcile 
" all things ; " for if you limit the phrase in the one 
place, you must limit the phrase in the other. I told 
him that Christians are already reconciled, but all oth- 
ers are to be reconciled, else Christ would not recon- 
cile all things unto himself. And you will notice that 
my friend says this passage in Colossians and the pas- 
sage in Ephesians are parallel ; and therefore his crit- 
icism on en and eis is defeated, for in Colossians the 
phrase " all things in heaven and in earth," means all 
mankind. 

But he says if he admits the salvation of the antedi- 
luvians, then I must prove that they will remain 
finally saved. I will satisfy him on that point when I 
come to the proper place. I intend to prove that, but 
he will please wait until I get to it. 

But he wants to know, if the spirits accepted the 
preaching of the gospel, or if Christ preached to them, 
how I can prove that they accepted it. Well, first I 
have proved that the preaching was for the purpose of 
their salvation. 

" For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that 
are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, 
but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Peter 4 : 6. 

Then I turned over to Colossians, where it speaks 
of Christ reconciling unto himself all things in the 
heavens, if you please ; and I proved by that that they 
will be reconciled. I have written out my views upon 
this matter, as delivered at the close of my last speech, 
and he can have them to examine at his leisure. 

But he says that in his opinion, the preaching to 
the spirits in prison refers to Christ's preaching 
through Noah, to the antediluvians ; but he gives no 
reason for so believing. A more literal translation 



134 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

forbids that idea. "Christ was put to death in flesh, but 
made alive in spirit, in which also he went and 
preached to the spirits in prison, who were formerly 
disobedient," etc. Christ was the preacher, not Noah. 
It was in his own Spirit he went and preached to the 
spirits in prison, and not by means of the Holy Spirit 
preaching through Noah before the Flood. I call his 
attention to the order of events as laid down by the 
Apostle here also : 1. Christ was put to death in flesh. 
2. He was made alive in spirit — his own spirit. 3. He 
went and preached to the spirits in prison — the spirits 
of those who were disobedient in the times of Noah. 
The disobedience was in the times of Noah, but not the 
preaching of Christ here mentioned. But if they 
neither could or would accept the gospel, why the 
preaching to them? When Christ ascended from 
hades, he " led captivity captive ; " in his train was a 
multitude of captives. Eph. 4 : 8-10. 

He wants to know what I want with the blood of 
Christ, the doctrine of forgiveness, etc. Now when I 
asked him about the heathen, he was terribly mum, 
and I might pursue the same course with regard to his 
enquiries. I might say, that is not in the question. 

But I have quoted passages here where it is said 
that " he hath made peace through the blood of his 
cross" — that he is to reconcile all things unto himself 
— and I showed that the work had been commenced — 
that some had been reconciled, and I took the ground 
that all would finally be reconciled. I admitted that 
some might fall away here, but not finally, for this 
work is to progress until all are reconciled. I showed 
that this was God's pleasure and the counsel of his will, 
and therefore that it would be done. I suppose my 
opponent will not contend that there is a literal appli- 
cation of the blood of Christ to the heart in the forgive- 
ness of sins. Certainly I do not. It is through faith 
in his blood that there is remission of sins. The blood 



MR. HUGHES* SIXTH SPEECH. 135 

of Christ has its efficacy in what it means, in what it 
brings to us. The blood of Christ was his life which 
he poured out unto death, in which there is a com- 
mendation of God's love to us while sinners, Rom. 5 : 
8; and a demonstration in power that he was the Son 
of God in his death and resurrection, a revelation of 
truth in a belief of which we are to be saved. I think 
that ought to satisfy him as to what use I had with the 
blood of Christ. 

He does not understand what I mean by the plural 
used in the passage which speaks of Christ gathering 
together in one all things that are in the heavens and 
that are in the earth. (Eph. 1 : 10.) Now I suppose 
that in the heavenly regions there are worlds upon 
worlds — if you please, spheres above spheres — and I 
read that — 

" He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all 
heavens, that he might fill all things;" Eph. 4 : 10. 

That when Christ ascended he went to the most sub- 
lime position in the universe, where he reigns over all ; 
and among these various grades of being there are 
those unreconciled to God, whom Christ is to reconcile. 

The brother was exercised yesterday lest I should 
not find a place for men to be reformed in the other 
world. I think there is plenty of room for that pur- 
pose in the regions below the highest heavens to which 
Christ ascended. If the brother will just look around 
there I think he will find plenty of room for them. 
And I have proved that Christ's reconciling power ap- 
plies to the heavens as well as to the earth, and there 
is no difficulty in the way of the reconciliation of the 
wicked in that state or on that score either. 

He quoted Mark 16 : 16— " He that believeth not 
shall be damned." But the word there should be ren- 
dered " condemned; "and if I understand my brother's 
doctrine, they admit that this condemnation rests upon 



136 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

the unbeliever now. So Clark Braden explained it in 
his debate with Bro. Hughey. And John says : 

11 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believ- 
eth not is condemned already, because lie hath not believed in the 
name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3 : 18. 

Now when he can prove that that clause of the com- 
mission applies to the final condition of men, then I 
will admit that he has done something for his side of 
the question. But it does not apply to the final condi- 
tion of men, and he cannot prove that it does. 

He makes some criticisms on the terms "all" "all 
nations" etc. Now I will lay down a rule here to ap- 
ply in these cases. It is this: Whenever the word 
" all," or an equivalent expression is used in any pas- 
sage, and there is no reason in the text or context, or 
subject matter to restrict or limit its meaning, it is 
to be taken in its unrestricted, literal sense. Other- 
wise it is to be understood subject to the limitation ex- 
pressed in the text, context, or subject matter to which 
the term refers. 

Now when we read that God " will have all men 
to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the 
truth;" (L Tim. 2: 4.) when we read that Christ will 
draw " all men " unto him, (John 12 : 32.) when it 
is said : 

" And he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, 
but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2 : 3. 
" He gave himself a ransom for all." 1 Tim. 2 : 6. 
" He tasted death for every man." Heb. 2 : 9. 

And again where it is said that " all the kindred 
of the earth," " all the nations of the earth," " all 
the families of the earth, are to be blest in Christ." 
(Gen. 12:3; 22 : 18. Acts 3 : 25.) There is nothing 
in the text, the context, or the nature of the subject, to 
restrict those terms, and they must be taken in their 
unlimited sense, to include all mankind. Now will 



ME. hughes' sixth sfeech. 137 

the brother take hold of my argument, and show its 
fallacy? 

I quoted from Acts 3 : 25, 26, and made an argument 
on it, and he quoted in the context, what refers to the 
teaching of the prophets, but I noticed that he did not 
quote the passage in hand. I suppose it did not suit 
him to quote it. Now, the promise to Abraham was 
that in his seed, that is in Christ, " ALL the kindreds 
of the earth " should be blessed. And Peter recites 
the promise : 

" Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which 
God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed 
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Acts 3 : 25. 

And then he says to the Jews : 

" Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him 
to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." Acts 
3 : 26. 

That is the passage I quoted, and that passage shows 
that the promise was to be first to the Jews, and then 
that the promise thus to be fulfilled in them was also 
to " all the kindreds of the earth." But I showed that 
this promise could not be completely fulfilled in this 
world, but must be in the future state. I think his ar- 
gument has not interfered with the validity of mine. 

Now, I am afraid before this discussion is done my 
brother will be found skeptical as to the faith of Father 
Abraham and his promise. I profess to be sound as to 
the faith of Father Abraham, the Father of the faithful 
— believing that all who are of faith are the children 
of Abraham, and are blest with faithful Abraham. 
And I guess he believes that too. But then I believe 
that the promise is sure of fulfillment, as sure as that 
God cannot lie, and that all the families of the 
earth will be blest in him. But I am afraid my broth- 
er don't believe that part of the promise. I fear he is 
skeptical there. 

But he does not answer me about the heathen, and 



138 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

he keeps on saying that they are not in the proposi- 
tion. Well, the proposition reads in this way : " The 
Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of 
all mankind " Now if I understand it rightly, the 
heathen are a pretty respectable body, so far as num- 
bers are concerned, and I suppose they are included in 
t( all mankind," and are, therefore, in this proposi- 
tion. I want to know, then, why he don't take a posi- 
tion in regard to the heathen. Either they get the 
benefit of this promise to all nations, or they do not. 
But they do not get the benefit of the promise here, 
and how are they to be saved unless they get the ben- 
efit of it hereafter ? But that opens up the way of sal- 
vation in the future, and to that he objects most deci- 
dedly. 

But he thinks sinners will have a hard chance" for 
reformation in the next world. He is going to have 
them with all the murderers, adulterers and vile char- 
acters that have ever lived, and to make their condition 
" as miserable as possible " in " outer darkness " there. 
Well, are they m a favorable condition for salvation 
in this world ? " Yes." But are they not in a condi- 
tion of sin and " outer darkness," that is, out of the 
kingdom now ? " Yes." Well, does " outer dark- 
ness" mean anything more in that world than it does 
here ? And if they are saved here, notwithstanding 
their condition of darkness, may they not be saved 
there ? " Yes, but they are in bad company." But is 
there no bad company here? "Yes." Are there no 
murderers, and adulterers and thieves here ? " Yes." 
Well then how is it that they are saved here ? And 
if they are saved, notwithstanding the bad comp'any 
here, may they not be saved notwithstanding any bad 
associations there ? Moreover Christ went to preach 
to them there, that they might be under the same rule 
and conditions in that state that they are under here, 
and therefore they may be saved there as well as here, 



ME. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 139 

for I am sure they had a very good and successful 
preacher preaching to them over there. And his ad- 
ministration has not yet ceased. " For, for this cause 
was the gospel preached to them that are dead." 1 
Peter 4 : 6. 

He quotes John 8 : 21 : " Ye shall die in your sins ; 
whither I go ye can not come," to prove that some 
sinners can not come to Christ. But then the Saviour 
made a similar declaration to the apostles. He said 
to the disciples : " Little children, yet a little while 
I am with you. Ye shall seek me : and as I said unto 
the Jews, Whither I go ye can not come; so now I 
say unto you." John 13 : 33. He did not say that 
they could never come to him. What he said was 
that they could not come to him then. And I chal- 
lenge him to prove by any Scriptures any where that 
there are some that can nevee come to Christ. Did 
he say to them, " Thou canst not come to me now, 
because thou shalt go into endless punishment ~? " Now, 
he said to these Jews, " Ye shall die in your sins ;" 
but he did not say to them, " You* shall go into an 
eternal hell," and my brother can not prove it. But 
to prove his doctrine, he must prove that dying in 
their sins meant that they should go into an eternal 
hell. And that is what I deny. And he can never 
prove that he said anything stronger to the Jews than 
,he did to the apostles ; so if the Jews could never 
come to him, neither could the apostles ! 2 Thes. 1 : 
7-10 will come up again. He quotes Heb. 6 : 4-6, 
about its being impossible to renew certain parties to 
repentance : 

" For it is possible for those who were once enlightened, and have 
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy 
Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the power of the 
world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto 
repentance: seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God 
afresh, and put him to open shame." 

Now Paul evidently does not mean that it was ab- 



140 FIEST PKOPOSITION. 

solutely impossible that they should be renewed, but 
that it was impossible to man, not to God. The 
Saviour said on one occasion, when the rich young 
ruler came to see him, and went away sorrowful be- 
cause he had much possessions, which he was unwill- 
ing to give up for Christ : 

" It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than 
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disci- 
ples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can 
be saved ? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men 
this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." Matt. 
19:24-20. 

But if ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD, then 

it is not impossible for him to renew r these souls 
again unto repentance that have fallen away, and I say 
he will do it, for with him all things are possible. 

In reference to the Abruhamic promise, I wish to 
submit to brother Carpenter the views of Mr. Alex- 
ander Campbell. I quote from the Christian System, 
pp. 134, 135 : 

" The two promises to Abraham. — We find them in their most 
simple form in the beginning of the twelfth chapter of Genesis. 
The first — ' I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee 
and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing. I will bless 
them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee.' The second — 
' In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' These prom- 
ises, when fully developed, contained numerous blessings. They are, 
however, in all their details, separate and distinct from each other. 
Abraham's family alone are personally concerned in the first — all' 
families of the earth in the second. [So Mr. Campbell believed the 
promise to be universal.] Temporal and earthly are the blessings of 
the former, — spiritual and eternal are the blessings of the latter. Paul 
calls the second 'The gospel preached to Abraham,' and 'The cov- 
enant confirmed by God in reference to the Messiah four hundred 
and thirty years before the giving of the law.' The Jewish king- 
dom, in all its glory, was but the development of the first — the 
Christian kingdom in its present and future blessings is the consumma- 
tion of the second." 

I will now resume my direct arguments under this 
proposition : 



ME. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 141 

X. Christ will draw all Men to him. 

"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of 
this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will 
draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he 
should die." Jno. 12 : 31-33. 

" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent 
me draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written 
in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man 
therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh 
unto me." Jno. 6 : 44, 45. 

1. Christ means by the phrase "all men/' all man- 
kind. He refers to his death by being " lifted up." He 
is to draw as many as he died for; and "he tasted 
death for every man/' Heb. 2 : 9. 

2. By drawing men, he means teaching them. — 
"They shall all be taught of God." He is to so in- 
fluence them by his word and Spirit, that they will 
come to him. "Every man therefore that hath heard, 
and learned of the Father, cometh to me." 

XI. All will come to Christ. 

" As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give 
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." Jno. 17 : 2. 

" All things are delivered unto me of my Father : and no man 
knoweth the Son, but the Father : neither knoweth any man the 
Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 
Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will 
give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am 
meek and lowly in heart : and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matt. 11 : 27-30. 

" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that 
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from 
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which 
he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again 
at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every 
one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may haA^e everlast- 
ing life : and I will raise him up at the last clay." Jno. 6 : 37-40. 

"All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the 
Lord : and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. 
For the kingdom is the Lord's : and he is the governor among the 
nations." Ps. 22 : 27, 28. 



142 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

1. To come to Christ, is to believe on him and be- 
come his disciple. To enter into his salvation. 

2. All men are given to Christ, that he might give 
them eternal life. As many as God loves he has 
given into the hands of Christ, that he might save 
them. As many as Christ died for he has given him. 
He died for all. 

3. All that are given to Christ, he declares will 
come to Mm, so as not to be cast out. He will lose 
none of them, but raise them up again at the last day. 
And David declares that all will remember and turn 
to the Lord, and worship before him. 

XII. All to Submit to Christ. 

" Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him. a 
name which is above every name : that at the name of Jesus every 
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and 
things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, 
my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, 
but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation 
with fear and trembling : for it is God which worketh in you both to 
will and to do of his good pleasure." Phil. 2 : 9-13. 

" Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : for I 
am God and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word 
is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, 
That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Sure- 
ly shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength: 
even to him shall men come : and all that are incensed against him 
shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justi- 
fied, and shall glory." Isa. 45 : 22-25. 

" All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before 
thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and 
doest wondrous things : thou art God alone." Ps. 86 : 9, 10. 

1. We have here the most complete universality. 
It is " every knee," "every tongue," " of things (be- 
ings) in heaven, in the earth, and under the earth." 
Prof. Stuart says, " Things in heaven, earth, and 
under the earth, is a common periphrasis of the He- 
brew and New Testament writers, for the universe" 
Dr. George Campbell saysj, " Things in heaven, in the 
earth, and under the earth, here and in Rev. 5 : 13, 



ME. HUGHES* SIXTH SPEECH. 143 

include the whole rational creation" Dr. Whitby says, 
" The apostle means all the nations of mankind." Dr. 
A. Barnes says, " The whole universe shall confess that 
he is Lord." 

2. This universal homage and confession means 
moral submission to Christ and God — salvation. 

(1) A willing homage and confession only would be 
to the glory of God. 

(2) This alone harmonizes with the spirit of the 
text. It is at the name of Jesus, Saviour, that men are 
to bow the knee. 

(3) It is he that offereth 'praise that glorifieth God. 
" Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me ; and to him that 
ordereth his conversation aright will I show the sal- 
vation of God." Ps. 50 : 23. 

(4) There is no intimation here that some are to 
bow the knee, and confess willingly, and some by com- 
pulsion. There is no distinction as to the manner or 
spirit of bowing and confessing. It is all to the glory 
of God the Father. 

(5) In Isa. 45 : 24, the inference is very clear that 
the confessing to the Lord is in righteousness, which 
they swear they have in the Lord. 

(6) The same apostle declares, " All have sinned 
and come short of the glory of God," Kom. 3 : 23, 
which clearly teaches that men can not glorify God 
while in a state of sin. 

(7) To bow the knee, and to confess that Jesus is 
Lord to the glory of God the Father, is to worship and 
glorify the name of God. " All nations whom thou 
hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, 
and glorify thy name." Ps. 86 : 9. 

Dr. Adam Clarke says : " By confessing him to be 
Lord, we may understand that worship, which all in- 
telligent creatures are called upon to pay to God man- 
ifested in the flesh; for all should honor the Son as 



144 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

they honor the Father." Com. on verse 11. Prof. 
Stuart says " it means spiritual and divine worship." 
XIII. All Men shall be Constituted Eight- 

EOUS. 

" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death 
by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned : 
(for until the law sin was in the world ; but sin is not imputed when 
there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, 
even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not 
as the offense, so also is the free gift : for if through the offense of 
one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by 
grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 
many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift : for the 
judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many 
offenses unto justification. For if by one man's offense death reign- 
ed by one : much more they which receive abundance of grace and 
of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 
Therefore, as by the oflense of one judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's 
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one 
shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the 
offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much 
more abound : that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might 
grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ 
our Lord." Eom. 5 : 12-21. 

From this passage we learn : 

1. That death, moral and spiritual, passed upon 
all men, for that all have sinned. 

2. That it is through (not because of) the offense 
of one many be dead. 

3. That the free gift is of many (all) offenses unto 
justification of life; and not of the Adamic offense 
only. 

4. That " by, or through, the offense of one, judg- 
ment, or sentence, came upon all men to condemna- 
tion.^ 

5. That " by the righteousness of one, the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life." 

6. ' That "by the disobedience of one man, many, 
all mankind, were constituted sinners." 



ME. CARPENTER'S SIXTH REJOINDER. 145 

7. That " by the obedience of one, shall many, all 
mankind, be constituted righteous." 

8. That " where sin abounded, grace did much more 
abound" 

9. " That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so 
might grace (which superabounds sin) reign through 
righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our 
Lord." 

10. The phrase "the many," means "all men," 
all mankind. Dr. McKnight says, "For as hoi polloi, 
the many, in the first part of the verse, does not mean 
some of mankind only, but all mankind, from first to 
last, who without exception are constituted through 
the disobedience of Adam sinners ; so the many in the 
latter part of the verse, who are said to be constituted 
righteous through the obedience of Christ, must mean 
all mankind, from the beginning to the end of the 
world, without exception." Note on verse 19. 

11. The righteousness of verse 19, means active 
righteousness. Prof. Stuart says, dikaioi, moreover, 
must have an active sense here, in order to make out the 
antithesis to hamartoloi, which clearly bears only an 
active sense, if the usus loquendi may decide this point ; 
at least it does so wherever else it is employed." 
Com. on verse 19. 

12. When "the many" become righteous in the 
active sense, then all mankind will be holy and happy. 

Time expired.] 



MR. CAEPENTER'S SIXTH EEJOINDER. 

Brethren Moderators : — It will, perhaps, be as 
well for us to reverse the order of the affirmant's 
speech in our review at this time. 

His 13th argument is based on Eom. 5 : 12-21. I 
will call your attention to a few thoughts on this pas- 
10 



146 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

sage. In the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses of that chapter, 
the apostle says : 

" For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died 
for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die : yet 
peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But 
God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sin- 
ners, Christ died for us." 

And then he proceeds : (verses 9-11.) 

" Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be 
saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God by the death of his Son ; much more, beings recon- 
ciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also 
joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now 
received the atonement. " 

And then comes in the brother's quotation : (verse 
12.) 

" Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death 
by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," 
etc. 

But to whom does Paul write this ? Who consti- 
tute the " we" of this chapter I ask? Does this word 
include all mankind? If not, it gives no aid to my 
brother's proposition. Nothing can be more evident 
than that he is addressing Christians only. But we 
are told that death passed upon all men and that Christ 
died for all men. True. But what death passed upon 
all men by Adam ? My brother dare not say that it 
was spiritual death, for then he would have to admit 
" imputed sin from Adam, and imputed righteousness 
from Christ," which he stoutly denies. If it means 
temporal death, then it is simply parallel with 1 Cor. 
15 : 20-23, and only teaches a general resurrection 
through Christ. This we believe and teach. In Gen. 
3 : 19, God says to Adam, and through him to the 
race, " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." 
This is clear, and it is equally evident that all shall be 
raised through Christ. Now I believe that all that was 
lost by Adam is restored by Christ. Besides this, grace 
abounds for the forgiveness of actual transgressions to 



147 

those who will accept it. (verses 12-21.) Does ray 
opponent believe that it is spiritual death and spirit- 
ual restoration here meant ? Does he believe in im- 
puted righteousness? A few sharp definitions right 
here from brother Hughes will be in order and aid us 
very much in understanding him. 

All that was lost in Adam will be restored by Christ. 
We all go down to the grave by the first Adam, and 
we will all come up out cf the grave by the second 
Adam. If it was a spiritual death that we suffered in 
Adam, then I am willing to admit that we are all saved 
in a spiritual sense from the old Adamic transgressions. 
But what of our actual transgressions ? But that is 
just what I want him to determine, and that is what 
he dare not do. But he says that the " righteousness " 
of verse 19 — "shall many be raade righteous/ 7 means 
an "active righteousness;" then the "disobedience" 
must mean " actual transgressions." Now, I want to 
know if Christ has saved us from actual transgressions f 
If so, how about the suffering for all our sins ? He 
has not proved that, however, and never will. To 
listen to his last argument you would think that he 
is a believer in a vicarious atonement, /should like 
to know whether he believes in a vicarious atonement ? 

Mr. Hughes — Do you believe in a vicarious atone- 
ment? 

Mr. Carpenter — I believe in it as I understand 
it. I prefer to state the definition myself. I might 
not agree to such views as those of Mr. Bushnell, per- 
haps, and others. 

Mr. Hughes — Oh ! yes ; you believe it as you un- 
derstand it ! So do I. 

[Catechetical interruption was again objected to.] 

Mr. Carpenter resumed : Well, we shall see 
about the atonement again. I think he does not be- 
lieve in the vicarious atonement in any proper sense. 

I now refer him to Matt. 22 : 30 : 



148 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

" For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in 
marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." 

Will Mr. Hughes tell us when that resurrection is to 
be, and what he makes of it? Perhaps he will notice 
it " by and by." He is deferring a great deal of mat- 
ter to that indefinite time. 

I also refer him to Luke 20 : 29-36 : 

" There were therefore seven brethren : and the first took a wife, 
and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he 
died childless. And the third took her ; and in like manner the sev- 
en also ; and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman 
died also. Therefore in the resurrection, whose wife of them is she? 
for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering, said unto them, 
The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage ; but 
they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the 
resurrection from the dead ; neither marry, nor are given in mar- 
riage. Neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto the 
angels ; and are the children of God, being the children of the res- 
urrection." 

Now I have admitted that all men will be raised from 
the dead. But he concludes that all men will there- 
fore be the children of God, and equal to the angels. 
But is that so ? No : the writer is talking about a 
'particular resurrection of those who should be " ac- 
counted WORTHY TO OBTAIN THAT WORLD, and the 
resurrection from the dead," — a special resurrection. 
Not aV, then, but some, will be equal to the angels, 
etc. You will please notice that it is ek nekron that is 
used here — " out of chad ones;" "from among the 
dead." See Wilson, Eotherham, Bible Union ver- 
sion, McKnight, etc. Then, if they are taken "from 
among the dead" there are some of the dead, in 
the sense of this passage, who are left, or from 
whom these are separated. And so all are not in 
this resurrection. 

I refer also to Phil. 3:11: 

" If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the 
dead." 

There was to be a resurrection Paul desired, to which 



ME. CAEPENTEE'S SIXTH EEJOINDEE. 149 

he had not yet attained; not a common, but a special res- 
urrection : 

" Women received their dead raised to life again ; and others 
were tortured, not accepting deliverance ; that they might obtain a 
better resurrection." Heb. 11 : 35. 

A " better " resurrection implies a worse. 

" Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming in which all that are 
in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth : they that 
have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have 
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John 5 : 28, 29. 

Here the two resurrections are definitely spoken of. 
Will Bro. Hughes explain them ? 

In his 12th argument he tells us that man cannot 
glorify God in a state of sin. But then he has admit- 
ted that God makes the wrath of man to praise him. 
Psalm 76 : 10. If his glorying is akin to the Psalm- 
ist's praising, then the brother is mistaken. 

The brother has, during this discussion, quoted a 
number of doctors of divinity as if they all sustained 
the doctrine of the final happiness and holiness of all 
mankind. But do they ? 

Me. Hughes — I did not quote them as believers in 
the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. 

Me. Caepentee — But you quoted them as if they 
believed it. 

Me. Hughes — I quoted what they said about the 
doctrine of endless misery. 

Me. Caepentee — Yes, you quote them as you 
quote the Scriptures, taking their words out of their 
proper connection, wresting and misapplying them to 
cover your defeat, which is becoming more and more 
apparent. But is this fair ? 

[Interlocution was again ruled out by the modera- 
tors.] 

Me. Caepentee — He keeps up his jingle of words 
on " all nations/' " all people," " all flesh," " all 
things," " reconcile all things," etc., though I have 
several times fully answered him upon these points. 



150 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

But his case is evidently one of desperation, and he 
must keep up appearances. I have clearly shown that 
these terms as used in the Scriptures never mean a 
mathematical whole, and hence are nothing to his pur- 
pose. It does, therefore, seem needless that I should 
repeat the refutations of his assumptions. But he is 
in the affirmative, and I suppose I must follow him in 
all his windings. I have already shown that the same 
form of speech is used in reference to John the Bap- 
tist that is used with reference to Christ in this mat- 
ter. I again quote : 

" And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias (John) truly 
shall first come, and restore all things." Matt. 17 : 11. 

Does Eph. 1 : 10, Col. 1 : 20, or any other Scripture 
use stronger language than this? Yet we know John 
did not restore all things in my brother's application 
of these words. There were those who rejected the 
counsel of God against themselves in not obeying him. 
I read : 

" And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified 
God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees 
and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not 
baptized of him." Luke 7 : 29, 30. 

It is said all that heard him " were justified, " and 
Jesus endorses the promises of the prophet that John 
should i% restore all things." Yet thousands rejected 
this " counsel/' "justification," and "restoration." 
The opportunity was to all for whom John's mission 
was intended, but this mission was to comparatively 
few of the entire race ; and many of these refused the 
offered favors. It was of advantage only to those who 
accepted the terms ; and just so it is with the mission 
of Christ. Why will not my opponent allow Scrip- 
ture to be interpreted by Scripture ! Ah, he knows 
that will ruin his theory. We have also shown the 
restricted use of these terms by numerous other pas- 
sages. But we are told that the " all things " of Col. 



MR. CARPENTER'S SIXTH REJOINDER. 151 

1 : 20, is the same " all things created," of the 16th 
verse. But in his argument he admits very important 
limitations. Does the " reconcile all things," of the 
20th verse, include the brute, vegetable, and mineral 
creation of the 16th verse ? Does it include the an- 
gelic creation^ some of whom never sinned that they 
should need reconciliation? Does it include infants 
and others who need no reconciliation? He will not 
dare say it includes all these classes. That which 
proves too much proves nothing. If, then, he will 
further limit it to those who accept the reconciliation, 
he will be right and scriptural. When upon the Abra- 
hamic promise he quoted Titus 1 : 2, 3 ; Tim. 1 : 9; 2 
Cor. 5 : 17-19, etc. Now, if he will study those pas- 
sages, he will learn that this reconciliation is to be in 
this world through the preaching of the gospel, and 
not in the future world through Christ's personal 
preaching. It is through the gospel that God's pur- 
pose and grace are extended. Paul says : (2 Cor. 5: 18, 
19.) "And hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia- 
tion^ "the word of reconciliation." il Preach the ^uspel 
to every creature." Mark 16 : 16. " And I will give 
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven that 
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven," etc. Matt. 16 : 19. God deposited the terms 
of this reconciliation in the gospel to be preached in 
this world. Here the conditions are " bound " and 
" loosed ; " and there is no change there. So you see 
that upon this whole subject as well as that of the res- 
urrection, my opponent is "confusion worse confound- 
ed." 

He refers to John 8 : 21, where Christ says to the 
Jews that they shall die in their sins, and that whith- 
er he went they could not come. Then he tells us 
that Christ made a similar declaration to the apostles. 
But Christ afterwards qualified it, (John 13 : 36,) by 
saying that the disciples should follow him " after- 



152 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

ward ; " but this was not said of the wicked Jews. 
Either Jews or apostles could have followed him to 
death, but not to heaven. The apostles would go 
there " afterward." 

But he is going to show that over in the other state 
men can not fall. Ha says men are reconciled here. 
Well, we agree on that, and I think I shall have use 
for that hereafter. Bat does he believe in the prin- 
ciple, " Once in grace, always in grace ? " Why, I 
don't know but, if he keeps on, he will ontdo the most 
orthodox of us ! But men do fall, even here, my 
brother. Even our Calvinist friends believe that they 
may fall in a sense here. And my brother seems to 
incline that way. 

But he thinks over there they can not fall. Why 
not, my brother? If they are free agents there, why 
may they not fall there as well as here ? You must 
prove that holiness and happiness is their "final state" 
in the sense of their last state, before you can prove 
that they can not fall there. 

But the " spirits in prison," spoken of in 1 Pet. 3 : 
19, 20, are again brought upon the tapis. But if we 
should grant the interpretation claimed for this pas- 
sage, contrary to most standard authors, it would fall 
far short of sustaining the affirmative of the proposi- 
tion we are discussing, as the most that could be ad- 
duced from it is the fact that the antediluvians who 
had not heard the gospel here, heard it under Christ's 
preaching for the short space of about forty hours. 
But it has not been shown that a single one of those 
who had been rebellious under the preaching of Noah 
for one hundred and twenty years, accepted the preach- 
ing. Nor can it be shown, according to my opponent's 
doctrine, that if any did accept the teaching of Christ, 
that they would not again fall, and thus come short of 
the "final" salvation which his proposition calls upon 
him to prove. Nor does it follow that if the gospel 



ME. CARPENTER'S SIXTH REJOINDER. 153 

was preached to the antediluvians after death for the 
special reasons given, that it will be preached to those 
" who die in willful disobedience to it," — the very class 
whose final state we are considering. So, at best, this 
passage can avail him very little. But, with an over- 
whelming majority of standard authors, I deny his 
interpretation of the passage. 

But he seeks some coloring for his cause in a new 
translation of the passage, and lays special stress upon 
the fact that Christ was "put to death in flesh, but 
made alive in spirit." Does he mean to say that the 
spirit of Christ was ever dead, either morally or liter- 
ally ? Is he turning materialist, and. does he claim 
that the divine Saviour became unconscious, dead both 
as to body and spirit? To what extremities will not 
he go to save a favorite theory ! That Christ did 
preach to the antediluvians, no body denies ; but when 
and how are the questions. We say that it was by his 
spirit through Noah. Christ's spirit is said to be in 
Christians through the Holy Spirit. In this sense he 
preached to the antediluvians, and in this sense his 
body was quickened, or made alive, by his spirit. In 
proof of this we quote Eomans 8 : 11 : "But if the 
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell 
in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall 
also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwell- 
eth in you." Certainly it is not Christ's individual or 
personal spirit that dwells in us, but we are said to 
have his spirit when the Holy Spirit dwells in us. Thus 
Christ, in spirit, did preach through Noah. This is 
just what is declared in Gen. 6:3: His " spirit should 
not always strive." See also Heb. 11:7. 

But Eph. 4 : 8-10 is quoted. But no body denies 
that Christ's spirit came from the " unseen world " and 
reinhabited his body. But this is not the point. Again, 
if his exegesis be true, why does Peter speak only of 
the antediluvians? Were there no others in hades at 



154 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

that time? Thus, you see, by either of the lines of 
argument we have introduced, 1 Pet. 3 : 19 and 4 : 6, 
which my opponent makes parallel, are fairly captured; 
and my brother stands defeated even upon his own 
chosen texts, the ones, too, upon which he most relies. 
He refers to Bro. Clark Braden's views in reference 
to " condemnation," that this condemnation rests on 
unbelievers noiv. To this I agree. Bro. Braden has 
said a great many good things, and if he has said some- 
thing I do not endorse, I can not help that. But if the 
wicked are now under condemnation, that does not deny 
that they will remain under condemnation, if they do 
not repent, or that Christ will pronounce judgment 
upon them at the last day. On the contrary, it is said, 
John 3 : 36 : 

" He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and he that 
believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abid- 
eth on him." 

It "abideth on him." Will he tell us, if it abid- 
fth " on him," how he is to get from under it ? 

He refers to my argument on the unfavorable condi- 
tion of the wicked for reformation in the future world. 
He thinks there are bad characters here, and there is 
darkness here. Of course. But there are many good 
people here, and many favorable influences here from 
churches, sermons, prayers, etc. But there are none of 
these things there. Their associations will be all bad 
there; and if they do not repent under their present 
favorable circumstances, what will they do when all the 
good are gone to heaven, and none but the wicked are 
left to be with them ? 

He brings up the salvation of the heathen again. 
Now, I said I was under no obligations to take a posi- 
tion — neither affirm nor deny — on that subject. It is a 
subject about which there is very little said in the Bible, 
a few general principles may be learned in only two or 
three passages ; and I claim that it is not before us now. 



MR. CARPENTER'S SIXTH REJOINDER. 155 

But he wants me to come out of the thicket. No, he 
wants to get into the thickets. There are some ques- 
tions I have put to him I have been waiting for some 
time to have answered. Won't you come out of the 
thicket, brother? 

He brings up Acts 3 : 26 again, and sa^s that I 
quoted the connection, but did not quote the text. But 
my argument was founded on the passage logically con- 
nected with the text, and I showed clearly that the 
phrase " every one of you " could not be taken as extend- 
edly as he would understand it, since some were to be 
" cut off from the people " and " destroyed." 

He gives a rule for determining the meaning of the 
word " all" He says that, if there is nothing in the 
text, context, or subject matter, that limits the word, it 
is to be taken in its fullest sense. That is the very 
thing we are discussing, as applied to the passages which 
my brother introduces and that he is to prove. I be- 
lieve I have reviewed all the points I think it necessary 
to notice in the brother's speech, for as to " wincing," 
he is the only party to whom it will apply. 

I will now call attention to 1 Cor. 15 : 12-28 : 

" Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say 
some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead ? But if 
there he no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. And 
if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is 
also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ; because 
we have testified of God that he raised up Christ ; whom he raised 
not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then 
is not Christ raised : and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; 
ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in 
Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we 
are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the 
dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by 
man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 
But every man in his own order : Christ the first fruits, afterward 
they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he 
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when 
he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For 
he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last 



156 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things 
under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put under him, it 
is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son al- 
so himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that 
God may be all in all." 

Now " %y " (en) of the 21st verse (" BY man came 
death," etc.,) is the "in," of the 22d verse, (as (f in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.") 
Here it denotes agency, while in 2 Cor. 5 : 17 (" There- 
fore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature ; old 
things are passed away ; behold, all things are become 
new,") it denotes relation. Wilson, Mcknight, Camp- 
bell, Barnes, etc., translate it u by," in loco. Cobb, 
(Universalist,) says : " Some have argued that the death 
here spoken of is a moral death, and that the resurrec- 
tion is a moral resurrection. But this is to ignore the 
apostle's definition, * * * to cast away the most lu- 
cid treatise of a future life." Cobb, on verse 22. 

The blessings promised in Romans 5th and 1 Cor. 
15th are by grace. But some " receive the grace of God 
in vain," 2 Cor. 6:1; and some fail of this grace ; Heb. 
12: 14,15; and only those who have " an abundance 
of grace " shall enter into life by Jesus Christ. Rom. 
5 : 17. 

Jesus tells of some to be rewarded, or recompensed, 
" at the resurrection of thejust. ,y Luke 14: 12-14. . Paul 
tells the same : " And have hope toward God, which 
they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resur- 
rection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Acts 
24: 15. Now these are not those who had been " un- 
just," who are here spoken of, for all responsible persons 
would be thus included, since " all have sinned." This 
would destroy the distinction made. It means those 
who are then unjust, so that at the resurrection there 
will be " the just and the unjust." 

Again, he says : 

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the 



ME. CARPENTER'S SIXTH REJOINDER. 157 

fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death : 
if by any means, I might attain unto the resurrection from the dead." 
Phil. 3 : 10, 11. 

( Exanastasin ton nekron, out from among the dead, or 
from the dead. See Wilson's Diaglott, Rotherham, Bible 
Union, Anderson, Conybeare and Howson, Doddridge, 
Clarke, etc., in loco.) But then others must be left. 
Perhaps 1 Thes. 4 : 16 refers to the same : (" The dead 
in Christ shall rise first.") I also adduce Rom. 1 : 4, 
where it is said that Christ was declared to be the Son 
of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by 
the resurrection from the dead." And this is the resur- 
rection Paul refers to : 

" For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them 
also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." 1 Thes. 4 : 14. 

We are waiting for Romans 8th. Perhaps that will 
come " by and by." It certainly will come. 
. I will now introduce my next negative argument, 
which may be stated thus : 

VII. — Universalism Stultifies the Doctrine 
of the Atonement. — It will be remembered that mod- 
ern Universalism admits a future, or post mortem pun- 
ishment of the wicked, and that this may last for a long 
time. They have a hell that serves as a kind of Reform 
School. You know my friend speaks of something like 
" spheres " through which the wicked are to rise, until 
they reach the highest grade. And so there are upper 
and lower grades over there, and in these lower grades, 
or spheres, they are punished. And if this state of 
things extends in duration endlessly, it will answer the 
logic of my argument. It is not in place nor in hind, 
but in duration of punishment that my opponent and I 
differ. Hence the uselessness of the horrid sentimental- 
ism sometimes expressed by our Universalist friends in 
their quotations from Edwards and others. Their hell, 
if they are sincere in their expressions, will serve the 
ends of my logic, while it lasts. But now I press upon 
him to know in what sense persons are to be saved, and 



158 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

by what means? Is it the punishment they endure, or 
the blood of Christ, that saves them ? Will they be 
saved before they have "paid" the debt, until they 
have suffered the full demerit of their sins? A few 
sharp definitions, brother Hughes, right here, would 
help to a clear understanding of the matter. Will they 
be forthcoming? Now, if we suffer our "full deserts" 
then there is no " salvation " in the matter ; but if the 
punishment justly due our sins is remitted through the 
merits of Christ, then the doctrine of .the atonement, 
so long denounced by our Universalist friends, is ac- 
knowledged. 

The Scriptures are silent, as we have said, as to a post 
mortem appropriation of the merits of Christ. And here 
I may say that Universalists have taught, until within a 
few years, that Christ's blood was shed and its benefits 
are appropriated here, not in the next state ; but my 
brother wants to have these benefits appropriated over 
there. Let us see what the Scriptures say upon this 
point : " Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord" 
Rev. 14 : 13. Then those that do not " die in the Lord" 
will not be blessed. " Them that sleep in Jesus will God 
bring with him." Thes. 4 : 14. That excludes those who 
do not sleep in him, who have not died in him. " If ye 
die in your sins, whither I go (i. e. to heaven) ye can not 
come." John 8 : 21. " Be thou faithful unto death, 
and I will give thee a crown of life." Rev. 2 : 10. 

Christ came into this world to save sinners ; here his 
blood was shed ; here are all the institutions of the gos- 
pel. In this world we have the commission to preach 
the gospel to every creature, and the whole tenor of the 
gospel limits the merits of the atonement to this world. 

So far as obedience to the institutions of the gospel is 
concerned, it belongs to this world. I do not know 
what kind of obedience to the gospel he would have in 
the next world. From what he has said on the subject, 
I do not think he would have baptism over there, nor 



MR. CARPENTER'S SIXTH REJOINDER. 159 

the observance of the Lord's Supper either. Perhaps 
he will say it will consist in keeping the commandments ; 
but I do not think the commandments as we have them, 
will extend over there. How many of the commands of 
the decalogue, how many of the gospel, will be applica- 
ble there ? It is on the merits of Christ's blood as se- 
cured now by obedience, that I rest my hope of salva- 
tion after death. Take that out, and I see no propriety 
in the sacrifice of Christ. Take that out, and I should 
not wonder at your hearing my friend speak of the cru- 
elty of the sufferings of Christ. 

I argue, therefore, that Universalism destroys the 
Scriptural idea of the atonement. I. D. Williamson, a 
shining light of Universalism, says, in a lengthy article 
in Manford's Magazine, October, 1874: "If the right- 
eousness of Jesus may be imputed to men, and serve as 
a substitute for righteousness of their own, why not that 
of Peter, or Paul, or any other good man?" That this 
not only denies the atonement, but also the divinity of 
Christ, is apparent. An$ this comports well with 
Pitrat's work on the Pagan origin of certain doctrines. 
Thayer ( Theology, page 190 ) says : " It is not by the 
death of Christ, through which, according to popular 
theology, the atonement is made, but by his life, that we 
are saved from wrath." "We. think that these two quo- 
tations from high authorities among our Universalist 
friends, represent the standard notions among them re- 
specting the atonement. If my brother says that he be- 
lieves in the merits of Jesus Christ to cleanse us from our 
past sins, I shall be glad. If he admits the divinity of 
Christ, I shall be still more pleased. If he will tell us 
whether Christ had two human parents — Joseph and 
Mary — or only one, that is to say, whether he was con- 
ceived by the Holy Ghost, I shall be happy to hear 
it from him, I shall think that he is progressing toward 
good orthodox principles here. But if he shall deny 
these things, then I shall want to know what use he has 



160 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

for the blood of Christ at all ! And I shall want to 
know what these Scriptures mean : 

" But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellow- 
ship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth 
us from all sin." 1 John 1 : 7. 

" In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness 
of sins." Eph. 1 : 7. 

" How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eter- 
nal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your consciences 
from dead works to serve the living God ? " Heb. 9 : 14. 

" Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own 
blood." Kev. 1 : 5. 

I might also refer him to 1 Pet. 1:18; Matt, 26 : 28 ; 
Heb. 10; 29; Eom. 5 : 6-15; Rev. 7 : 14, and many 
other passages. We " wash," " cleanse," etc., not to pre- 
vent ourselves from becoming soiled ; but to purify us 
from filth already contracted ; and so the washing of the 
blood of Christ is not to prevent our becoming filthy ; 
but to remove from us sins we have already committed. 
Will our brother tell us what he holds as to this point ? 

I demur, therefore, to my opponent's doctrine, be- 
cause it does away, logically, with salvation through the 
blood of Christ. But since, logically, according to Uni- 
versalism, the merits of Christ's blood cannot be appro- 
priated to us, it follows that we must be punished till we 
not only wholly quit sinning, but have paid up all the 
old scores ; for they argue that there is no escape from 
deserved punishment until the whole debt is paid. If a 
man murders, it is not sufficient that he shall murder no 
more, but he must suffer for the crime already commit- 
ted. And if he suffers for it a million of years, he will 
be as much a murderer as when he began ; for there is 
nothing in mere suffering to take away sin. Hence, 
without the application of the blood of Christ, unless his 
sin is forgiven, man can never be freed from his punish- 
ment, since as a creature his all belongs already to God, 
and he has nothing of his own with which to wipe out 
his old scores. [Time expired.] 



161 



Brethren Moderators : — My first work shall be 
to introduce what proof I have additional to that already- 
offered, before reviewing my opponent's last speech. I 
do this because I want to get all my direct argument be- 
fore him, so that he shall have ample time to reply to it 
before the close of the debate. I submit the following 
argument : 

XIY . The creation shall be delivered. 

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not 
worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifesta- 
tion of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, 
not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in 
hope ; because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of 
God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth 
in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, 
which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan 
within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to-wit, the redemption of 
our body." Kom. 8 : 18-23. 

On this passage I call attention to the following 
points : 

1. That the " creature earnestly expects and waits for 
the manifestation, or revelation of the sons of God." 

2. That "the creature was made subject to vanity." 

3. That this subjection was made without consulting 
the will of the creature. 

4. That this subjection is " in hope." 

5. That the creature shall be delivered. 

6 . That this deliverance is to be " into the glorious lib- 
erty of the children of God." 

7. That the word "creature," or " creation," most 
evidently refers to sentient, intelligent beings. 

8. That the " creature," or " creation," is man, man- 
kind in general. Prof. Stuart says : " I have satisfied 
my own mind, that Jdisis means here, as in Mark 16 : 
15 ; Col. 1 : 23, mankind in general, in distinctive 



162 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

form, but not in opposition to Christians as such." Com. 
on place. " Ktisis in this passage signifies every human 
creature." Dr. McKnight, note on verse 19. 

9. The fact of some having the " first fruits," or 
" earnest of the Spirit," makes no exception to this groan- 
ing of the creation. 

10 That there is to be a redemption of " our body," 
that is the body of humanity, the " whole creation." 

11. That when the creation, all mankind, shall be de- 
livered into the glorious liberty of the children of God, 
then all men will be holy and happy. 

XV. Christ on the Eesurrection. 

" The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is 
no resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, if a man 
die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise 
up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren ; 
and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no 
issue, left his wife unto his brother ; likewise the second also, and the 
third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. There- 
fore in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven ? for 
they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them : Ye do err, 
not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resur- 
rection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the 
angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the 
dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, say- 
ing, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacob ? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Matt. 
22 : 23-32. 

" And Jesus answering said unto them, the children of this world 
marry, and are given in marriage ; but they which shall be accounted 
worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, 
neither marry, nor are given in marriage ; neither can they die any 
more ; for they are equal unto the angels ; and are the children of 
God, being the children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are 
raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the 
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For 
he is not a God of the dead, but of the living ; for all live unto him." 
Luke 20: 34-38. 

The Saviour here teaches : 

1. The resurrection of the dead — of all the dead. 
" Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at 
the burning bush." 



ME. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 163 

2. That in the resurrection life or state, they neither 
marry nor are given in marriage. 

3. That the raised dead are immortal — " neither can 
they die any more." 

4. That they are " equal to," or " like the angels of 
God in heaven." 

5. That they are "the children of God," "being the 
children of the resurrection." 

6. That they " all live unto God." 

7. As the Saviour teaches the resurrection of all man- 
kind, so it is evident that all mankind " shall be ac- 
counted worthy" or " honored to share in the resurrection 
and the other world. 

8. When all mankind are raised to immortality, be- 
come equal to the angels, are the children of God, being 
the children of the resurrection, then all men will be 
holy and happy. 

9. The condition of men into which they are raised, 
is the final condition. They are immortal — " neither can 
they die any more," a state of immortality, in equality to 
the angels of God — as children of God, being the child- 
ren of the resurrection. 

The word Jcataxio, here rendered " shall be accounted 
worthy," occurs in but three other cases in the New 
Testament, as follows : 

" Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted 
worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand 
before the Son of man." Luke 21 : 36. 

" And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing 
that they were accounted worthy to suffer shame for his name." Acts 
5: 41. 

" Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that 
ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also 
suffer." 2 Thes. 1 : 5. 

It does not mean merit for compensation, or intrinsic 
worth or moral excellence, but the estimation in which 
one is held by others. 



164 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

" Kataxio. To deem worthy, to honor, to esteem, to 
desire, to sue for." Donnegan's Lexicon, 

" To account worthy, esteem fit." Greenfield's Lex- 
icon. 

"To judge worthy, deem fit, esteem, value, rate high- 
ly, to honor, respect, revere." Grove's Lexicon. 

The word in Luke 20 : 35, is used something like the 
word " value " in Matt. 10 : 31, " ye are of more value 
than many sparrows ; " — relating not to moral excellence, 
but to the scale of being in the Creator's regard. 

I give different readings of Luke 20 : 35, as follows : 

" But among them who shall be honored to share in the 
resurrection and the other world." Dr. George Camp- 
bell. 

" But they who are accounted worthy to obtain that 
world." American Bible Union Trans, 

" But these who are judged worthy to obtain that life, 
and the resurrection of the dead." Dr. Ij. A. Sawyer's 
Trans. 

" But they who have been accounted worthy to obtain 
that world, and the resurrection of the dead." Dr. 
Noyes y Trans. 

A literal translation of Jcataxiothentes is, " having been 
accounted worthy." See B. Wilson in Emphatic Diaglott. 
The form of the word in Greek is the participle, and has 
a past reference. It is the aorist participle. 

The simple sentiment of the Saviour is, " The child- 
ren of this world marry and are given in marriage, but 
they having been accounted worthy to obtain that world 
and the resurrection of the dead, do not marry, cannot 
die any more, are the children of God, being the child- 
ren of the resurrection." 

XVI. Paul on the resurrection and consum- 
mation. 

" But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits 
of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also 
the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order j Christ the 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 165 

first fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then, 
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, 
even the father ; when he shall have put down all rule, and all au- 
thority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies 
under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For 
he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things 
are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put 
all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto 
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject under him, that God 
may be all in all." 1 Cor. 15 : 20-28. 

" But some man will say, How are the dead raised up ? and with 
what body do they come ? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not 
quickened, except it die ; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not 
that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of 
some other grain ; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him 
and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh, but 
there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of 
fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and' bod- 
ies terrestrial ; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of 
the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another 
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one star difler- 
eth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the 
dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption ; it is 
sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it is 
raised in power ; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual 
body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And 
so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul ; the last 
Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not 
first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that 
which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the sec- 
ond man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they 
also that are earthy ; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that 
are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we 
shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, 
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ; neither doth 
corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery : We 
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the 
twinkling of an eye, at the last trump ; for the trumpet shall sound, 
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must 
put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incor- 
ruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be 
brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in 
victory. O death, where is thy sting ? O grave, where is thy victo- 
ry ? The sting of death is sin ; and the strength of sin is the law. 
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, un- 
moveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as 



166 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." 1 Cor. 15 : 35-58. 
The apostle here teaches : 

1. The resurrection of all mankind. 

2. That all shall be made alive in Christ. " As in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' 9 

3. To die in Adam, is to die in the " image of the 
earthy." To be made alive in Christ, is to be made alive 
in the " image of the heavenly," verse 49. " As we have 
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the im- 
age of the heavenly." To be " in Christ," is to be a new 
creature. "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a 
new creature ; old things are passed away ; behold, all 
things are become new." 2 Cor. 5 : 17. 

4. That the state to which all are to be raised, is one 
of "glory," of "power," of " incorruptibility," of "im- 
mortality." 

5. That by the resurrection of all mankind to " life 
and immortality," shall death, the last enemy, be de- 
stroyed. 99 

6. Death being destroyed by the resurrection of all 
mankind to immortality, it being the last enemy, it 
follows that there will be no enemies to man beyond 

THE RESURRECTION. 

7. The last enemy is death; the last effort of destroy- 
ing power is for the destruction of death ; that last act 
of destroying power gives to all men immortality. It 
follows, therefore, that men are not in the catalogue of 
enemies destroyed. 

8. Then "will death be swallowed up in victory, and 
tears wiped from off all faces ;" as written in Isa. 25 : 
6-8: 

"And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all 
people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things 
full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will de- 
stroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, 
and the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up 
death in victory ; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all 
faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all 
the earth : forthe Lord hath spoken it." 



167 

9. That then shall have been accomplished the 
subjection of all things to Christ. That moral subjec- 
tion, the consummation of which his power and death 
are the pledges. 

" For our conversation is in heaven ; from whence also we look 
for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ : who shall change our vile 
body, that it may he fashioned like unto his glorious body, accord- 
ing to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto 
himself." Phil. 3 : 20, 21. 

" Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in 
that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not 
put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for 
the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor ; that he by 
the grace of God should taste death for every man." Heb. 2 : 8, 9. 

A subjection to Christ in the same sense in which 
Christ becomes subject to God the Father; that God 
may be all in all. 

10. This is the final condition of man, a state be- 
yond which there is no other. Paul defines it to be a 

State Of " INCORRUPTIBILITY AND IMMORTALITY " in 

glory and power. When God is all in all there is a de- 
liverance from the bondage of corruption into the glori- 
ous liberty of the children of God. And there is such 
an intimate and glorious connection between God and the 
soul, such an indwelling ■ of the love that never faileth, 
that the state of man will then be an endless one of 
glory and happiness. 

Origen, in commenting on Rom. 6 : 9, " Christ being 
raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no 
more dominion over him," says : " The apostle decides, 
by an absolute decision, that Christ now dies no more, 
that those who live with him may be secure of the eter- 
nity of their XifeP Again : " Free will indeed remains, 
but the power of the cross suffices for all orders, and 
all ages, past and to come. And that free will will not 
lead to sin is plain, because ' love never faileth/ and 
when God is loved with all the heart, and soul, and 
mind, and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves, 



168 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

where is the place for sin ? " " For good reason, then, 
love, which alone is greatest of all, will keep every 
creature from falling. Then God will be all in all." 

PauPs belief is that nothing will be able to separate 
from the love of God. 

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, 
nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to 
come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to 
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." 
Kom. 8 : 38, 39. 

God all in all. Then God's purpose being ful- 
filled in man's salvation, and so man's will being in con- 
formity with God's will, we have God's absolute will 
and man's will concurring to make this the final state of 
man. Amen! The Lord God omnipotent reigneth! 
And let honor, and power, and glory, and blessing be 
to him for ever and ever. 

My brother says he is waiting for Rom. 8th. I wish 
now to quote Rom. 8 : 35-39. 

" Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? shall tribula- 
tion, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or 
sword? * * * For I am persuaded, that neither death, 
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things pres- 
ent, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other crea- 
ture, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in 
Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Now let us begin with that. My brother says that 
death may separate us from the love of God, which is 
in Christ Jesus our Lord. Paul says it shall not be 
able to. He thinks life may separate us ; Paul says not. 
He thinks angels may; Paul says they can not. He 
says that millions will be separated eternally from the 
love of Christ ; Paul says there is absolutely nothing 
that will be able to separate us from him. But if 
nothing can separate us from him, then we shall be 
with him, and shall be finally holy and happy. 

But he says that the apostle in Romans 5th uses the 
pronoun " we," and that that means Christians. And 
he affirms that I am wrong in applying that passage in 



ME. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 169 

Romans to all mankind. And then he goes right on 
and admits that all that is lost in Adam will be regain- 
ed in Christ. And as all die physically in Adam, so all 
will be brought out of their graves by Christ. Then, 
of course, the passage applies to all men ; and since we 
have shown that this is a moral resurrection, all will be 
morally restored in Christ. 

The preaching to the " spirits in prison " once more. 
Brother Carpenter thinks that if it is a fact that the 
gospel was preached by Christ to the antediluvian dead, 
it was because the gospel had not been preached to them 
before. It seems, then, that there was some slight 
reason why the gospel should be preached to the hea- 
then in the future world, as they have not heard it here ! 
But why so in the case of the antediluvians, who had 
Noah as a preacher of righteousness for the space of 
one hundred and twenty years ? Why, he believes that 
Christ had preached to them by the Holy Spirit through 
Noah ! But he says the great majority of commenta- 
tors are against me. I am not so sure of -that ; but I 
am sure that the united voice of the Christian Fathers 
and writers for many centuries after Christ is on my 
side of the interpretation of that passage. I am sure, 
also, that the words of the passage will not bear the 
construction that false systems have placed upon it. 
The apostle's words are, " made alive in spirit." They 
are not my words, but the words of an inspired apostle. 
Just as surely as Christ was " put to death in flesh " — 
his own flesh, so was he " made alive, or quickened, in 
spirit " — his own spirit. I do not understand the apos- 
tle to mean that Christ was dead in spirit, but that he 
died to this mode of existence, and was quickened or 
made alive to that mode of existence. But he tries to 
get up a difficulty over two absolute wills, the will of 
man and the will of God. He wants to know how 
God's will can be absolute and man's will be free. I 
think I have replied sufficiently to that. I think I 



170 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

have shown that man's will will in that future state, be 
brought to submit to God's will in a moral subjection 
— that the will of man and the will of God will concur 
in salvation. And if they concur, God being all in all, 
how can there be any variance between them, or falling 
away after that? He may say they may fall away, 
unless the word " everlasting " is applied to their sub- 
mission to the will of God. He would be glad to have 
me attempt to prove that they can not fall, by the 
words everlasting, eternal, or some similar word. But 
will the word everlasting, or any synonymous word, 
make this state any more secure ? Why, it is apj^lied 
to man's happiness here, but nevertheless he sometimes 
loses it. 

He wants me to prove that the antediluvians will 
never sin and fall away again " over there." I think 
he will find a sufficient reply to that in the answer I 
made to him this morning on that subject. I commend 
that to him again. 

I would Jike to know just here why he has been so 
careful all along to reply to arguments that I have not 
made ? Why has he all along been anticipating Scrip- 
tures that I might introduce, and then anticipating ar- 
guments on those Scriptures where he thought he could 
make a point? I suppose he thought it was easier to 
answer arguments that I had not made than to answer 
the arguments I did make, and so he has used up his 
time in that way ! If he had confined himself to my 
arguments, he w T ould not have been beating a man of 
straw to death here of his own making. 

In reference to the passages he quoted about " a bet- 
ter resurrection" etc. Heb. 11 : 35 : "Women received 
their dead raised to life again; and others were tor- 
tured, not accepting deliverance ; that they might obtain 
a better resurrection." That is, a better resurrection 
than being raised to this life again. The contrast is 
between a resurrection to immortalityand a resurrec- 



ME. HUGHES* SEVENTH SPEECH. 171 

tion back to this life again. The former is the better 
resurrection. Paul labored " to attain unto the resur- 
rection of the dead " ; i. e., he was laboring to attain to 
a likeness of character to that to which he would 
finally attain in the resurrection. (Phil. 3: 11.) But 
he says: (vv. 12-14.) 

" Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect : 
but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am 
apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have 
apprehended : but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which 
are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I 
press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God 
in Christ Jesus." 

That is, I have not already attained unto this moral 
perfection, like unto that of the resurrection of the 
dead. But I am laboring for it, pressing forward to it. 
To make this a resurrection to immortality, and his 
salvation dependent upon his attaining it, would prove 
the endless misery of the apostle, had he died at that 
time ; for he says he had not yet attained to it. 

In reference to 1 Thes. 4 : 14, " For if we believe 
that Jesus died and rose again, even so them that sleep 
in Jesus will God bring with him," I would say that 
a literal translation would be, " those that sleep by means 
of Jesus will God bring with him." When Christ 
comes at the end of his reign, he will bring the raised 
dead with him. Paul says, 1 Thes. 4 : 15-18 : 

" For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we 
which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not 
prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend 
from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with 
the trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall rise first : then we 
which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them 
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air : and so shall we ever be 
with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." 

The living at that time are changed in the twinkling 

of an eye, and are caught up in clouds to meet the 

Lord in the air with the raised dead, which by means 

of Jesus, God will bring with him. We then have the 

raised dead brought here with Christ, and all that are 



172 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

then living on the earth are changed, immortalized, 
according to the previous passage just quoted. The 
dead and those which are alive and remain on the earth 
include all mankind, which confirms our views of 
1 Cor. 15, viz., that all will be made alive in Christ. 

But he comments on what Christ said to the Jews, 
Jno. 8 : 21. He tries to show that the Jews never 
could go where Christ was going ; and that Christ ex- 
plained to the apostles that they should follow him 
afterwards. But he will find that Peter inquires : 
" Lord, why can not / follow thee now ? I will lay 
down my life for thy sake." Peter speaks of himself 
alone, and of his willingness to die for the Saviour ; 
and Christ makes direct reply to Peter personally : 
" Whither I go thou canst not follow me now ; but thou 
shalt follow me afterwards." Jno. 13 : 36. He said 
this to Peter certainly concerning his death, in which 
he did follow by crucifixion, as he was crucified after- 
wards, head downwards. Of this Peter himself speaks 
in his second letter, chapter 1 : 14. 

Peter could not follow him at the time of the cruci- 
fixion, but was to follow him afterwards. But if this 
be construed to be a promise to all the apostles that 
they should follow him afterwards, there is a promise 
to the Jews also ; for he said to them : " For I say 
unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall 
say, Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the 
Lord." Matt. 23: 39. The time is to come, then, 
when they will welcome the presence of Christ. And 
Paul says : 

" For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this 
mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness 
in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be 
come in. And so all Israel shall be saved : as it is written, There 
shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodli- 
ness from Jacob : for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall 
take away their sins." Rom. 11 : 25-27. 



ME. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 173 

And what he said to the Jews he said to the disci- 
ples: 

"Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall 
seek me ; and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye can not 
come, so now I say to you." John 13 : 33. 

If the Jews could not come to Christ, neither could 
the disciples, and my opponent can never show that 
Christ said more to the Jews than he did to them. 

The " remnant," therefore, is to be brought in, their 
" blindness is to be done away, and Christ will take 
away their sins. Then, when he said to them, 
" Whither I go, ye can not come," it does not mean 
that they were to be consigned to eternal exclusion 
from his presence. [Time expired.] 

MR. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 

Sirs Moderators :-t-I will first review the brother's 
last speech. He again quotes Christ's language to Pe- 
ter, and claims that he said as much to the apostle as he 
did to the wicked Jews. Let us read a parallel passage 
and see : 

" Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou ? Jesus 
answered him, whither I go, thou canst not follow me now ; but thou 
shalt follow me afterwards." John 13 : 36. 

But he never made any such declaration to the wicked 
Jews. The reason assigned why they could not follow 
him was : " Ye shall die in your sins." John 8 : 21. 
This fact rendered it impossible for them to follow him 
to heaven. But my opponent says that the language to 
Peter only meant that he could not then follow the Sa- 
viour in his death. Well, those wicked Jews all died, 
and some of them, doubtless, on the cross ; but this was 
not going to Christ. Tradition says Peter was crucified 
with his head downward, that he might not be in the at- 
titude of his Master ; so that he never followed him ex- 
actly in my brother's sense. But what the Saviour did 
mean respecting the apostles is this : 



174 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

" In my Father's house are many mansions : if it were not so I 
would have told you ; I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go 
and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto 
myself; that where I am, there ye maybe also. And whither I go 
ye know, and the way ye know." John 14 : 2-4. 

They should follow him to the Father's house when 
he should return for them. How different the declara- 
tions concerning the Jews : 

" Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek 
me, and shall die in your sins ; whither I go, ye cannot come. 
Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, 
Whither I go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from 
beneath ; I am from above ; ye are of this world ; I am not of this 
world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins ; for 
if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John 8 : 
21-24. 

Jesus was from " above" from heaven, and returned 
thither ; but those who die in their sins can not follow 
him there. Could language be made plainer ? Why will 
my brother trifle with God's word? 

1 Thes. 4 : 14 is again introduced : "Those who 
sleep in Jesus," etc. ; and he says it should be rendered, 
" sleep by means of Jesus." If we should allow the 
change it would not interfere with our argument. All 
die by means of Adam, not Christ ; but some sleep in 
Jesus, or, if he prefers, by means of Jesus. But I was 
a little curious, when the brother was upon this point, 
to have him say whether it is the soul or the body that 
sleeps ! His argument sounded as though he was turn- 
ing Soul-sleeper. Perhaps, then, he is ready to renounce 
his Spiritualistic idea of spirits progressing up through 
(t sphere upon sphere " to the " most sublime eminence." 
Well, Bro. Hughes, I think this point will " do to keep ! ' 

He rallies once more upon the " spirits in prison." We 
knew that he would be loth to yield that text, and that 
he would persist in clinging to it as long as possible. 
But his defeat here has been too apparent, and he frets un- 
der it. He thinks the Fathers, or some of them, are with 
him ; but he is careful not to give us their names, much 



ME. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 175 

less their words. He sees the absurdity of his former 
position in regard to Christ's being dead in spirit, and 
tries to amend it. But he has not eradicated himself 
from his entanglement ; and I can well afford to let the 
matter, as the lawyers say, " rest " as it stands. 

He still wants to discuss the heathen question. We 
are all well convinced that he would just now rather dis- 
cuss the "heathen/' "baptism/' or almost any other 
question than the one in hand. But should we accom- 
modate him he might only " fly to ills he knows not of." 
He seems to forget too that he is in the affirmative, and 
continues to call upon me for proofs. My business just 
now is to disprove his affirmations. 

As we have several times shown, the heathen are not 
in the subject of debate. But he says they are a part of 
all mankind. True ; but they do not " die in willful dis- 
obedience to the gospel ; " and I agreed in the outset, if 
he would prove the final salvation of these worst charac- 
ters, I would concede all the rest. I told him that he 
need not trouble himself about infants, idiots, heathen 
nor saints. None of these are under discussion. But 
suppose we should grant that these heathen will all be 
saved ; or assert that they will all be condemned ; or, 
more Scripturally and rationally, that they will be 
judged according to the light they have, and thus some 
justified and some condemned — in either case it would 
not avail his proposition anything. Those dying in will- 
ful disobedience to the gospel, would still be unprovided 
for, as to salvation. But he thinks my interpretation of 
such passages as Mark 16: 16, would damn all the 
heathen, because they do not and cannot believe. Not 
so ; since the Saviour's language, " he that believeth not 
shall be damned," only applies to those who should hear 
the preaching, but would not accept it. This condem- 
nation does not rest on infants, idiots, heathen, or any 
others who can not believe, for want of opportunity. 

Then he refers to Heb. 11: 35, which speaks of the^ 



176 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

women who " received their dead raised to life again, 
and others being tortured, not accepting deliverance, 
that they might obtain a better resurrection. " He 
thinks that means the bringing up of their friends from 
the grave. Very well ; but is the future resurrection 
anything like that, brother ? Is it also a bringing up 
from the grave ? That will " do to keep." 

He complains that I have anticipated him in his argu- 
ments. Well, perhaps I have. In fact, I think that I 
have anticipated him pretty well all the way along. I 
have been ahead of him a little for some time, and 
have " anticipated " pretty nearly all his arguments ; but 
that was not my fault. He started ahead, and ought to 
have kept ahead, especially with the experience he has 
had in theological contests. 

He quotes : 

" For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor 
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor 
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall he able to separate 
us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Kom. 
8 : 38, 39. 

" Separate us ! " Who, my brother ? All mankind ? 
No ! Christians, for the apostle is speaking of Christ- 
ians, and of Christians only. And besides it might be 
possible that, while all other things might not be able to 
separate them from the love of God, yet they might sep- 
arate themselves by wicked works. 

You know Paul said : 

" I therefore so run, not as uncertainly so fight I, not as one that 
beateth the air : But I keep under my body, and bring it into sub- 
jection ; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I 
myself should be a castaway." 1 Cor. 9 : 26, 27. 

And what " love " does the apostle mean ? Our love 
for God, or his love for us ? 

He quotes, in his argument, from Origen, in support 
of his theory. Origen was one of the Fathers, but not 
very orthodox. He held some very loose notions. Does 
my brother endorse him ? Perhaps he thinks he was a 



MR. CAEPENTER ? S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 177 

good Universalist. But he was a Transmigrationist, a 
rotationist, and in philosophy he was a Pythagorean. 
He held that the spirits of men after death would go in- 
to other bodies, and rotate around in birds and beasts, 
and become men again, perhaps. I would not like that 
kind of rotation very much, but if he wants to quote 
him as an ancient Universalist, he can have him so far 
as I am concerned. 

He says that those who are raised, according to 1 Cor. 
15th, are in the final state ; and he proves that by apply- 
ing to them the word " incorruptible." But the apostle, 
when he used that word, was talking of a different class 
entirely from those to whom my brother would apply the 
expressions. But even supposing that we should allow 
that they are raised incorruptible and immortal, does 
that prove his proposition? Was not man made origi- 
nally upright and in the image of God, and was good 
and very good, yet did he not fall ? And if he fell once, 
if he is to exist over there, as my brother says, under the 
same conditions he does here, may he not fall again ? 
" Incorruptible " is not a word of duration, but of prop- 
erty or character. But we all die in (by) Adam, and we 
are all to be made alive in (by) Christ. But how did we 
all die in Adam, and how are we all to be made alive in 
Christ ? Was it a physical or a spiritual death we suf- 
fered in Adam ? Let us know that first ; then perhaps, 
we may find out how we are to be all made alive in 
Christ. But we will have more of that directly. 

But he complains that I do not follow him. The 
trouble with him is that I follow him too closely in mat- 
ters pertaining to the proposition, but will not follow 
him into the " thickets and jungles" of outside issues. 
That is what hurts him. 

But he goes again among the doctors for help to make 

these " obscure passages " teach his doctrine. But do 

all these men whom he quotes believe in his idea of the 

final holiness and happiness of all mankind ? Do these 

12 



178 FIEST PKOPOSITION. 

men intend to teach that the Scriptures set forth the doc- 
trine for which he is contending ? How does it come* 
that they — many of them men of the ablest and keenest 
intellect that have ever lived — after all confess them- 
selves compelled to believe in the doctrine of future and 
eternal punishment ? There must be some strong proofs 
of the truth of that doctrine in the Bible, or they would 
not have reached that conclusion. 

He offers a criticism on the word kataxio, rendered in 
Luke 20: 35, "shall be accounted worthy." He says 
it only occurs in three other cases in the New Testament, 
and that it does not mean merit, or moral excellence, but 
the estimation in which we are held by others. And he 
says it means in that passage, not moral excellence, but 
the scale of being in the Creator's regard. Now, it so 
happens that Christians do occupy such a position in the 
" scale of being in the Creator's regard/' and so are 
" counted worthy" in this particular case. But this im- 
plies that there will be others that will not be thus held 
in " the Creator's regard " on account of their " position 
in the scale of being/' and so they will not " obtain that 
world, and the resurrection from the dead," of which 
Christ is speaking in this passage. So that that render- 
ing does not help him any here. And this is that very 
resurrection to which Paul labored to attain. 

" That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and 
the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his 
death ; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." 
Phil. 3 : 10, 11. 

Observe, it was a resurrection, not certain, like that of 
1 Cor. 15th, but to be obtained by obedience to the re- 
quirements of Christ. 

He refers next to Acts 24 : 15 : 

"And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, 
that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and 
unjust." 

Bat what kind of a resurrection is this? Is it phys- 
ical or spiritual f And, by the way, before I dismiss 



ME. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 179 

hi? quotation from Luke 20th, I would like to know 
whether the regenerate — as he makes the resurrection 
spiritual — marry after they are regenerated ! I rather 
think my brother married after he was regenerated ; 
for of course he has been regenerated. But it is said 
of those " accounted worthy to obtain this resurrection 
that they neither marry, nor are given in marriage : 
neither can they die any more : for they are equal 
unto the angels ; and are the children of God, being 
the children of the resurrection/' You would better 
tix that up a little, brother. 

But my opponent would render 1 Thes. 4 : 14, 
" Sleep in Jesus," sleep by means of Jesus. Suppose 
we admit the rendering, does it help his cause ? Does 
it not yet follow that the Saviour makes a distinction 
between the righteous dead and the unrighteous; some 
do not "sleep by means of Jesus." Christians are said 
to sleep in contradistinction to others who are spoken 
of &s dead. So, then, Universalism gains nothing by 
this effort of his. Indeed it will become more and 
more apparent as we proceed in this debate, that the 
Bible every where, when properly interpreted, draws 
a line between the saint and the sinner, and makes 
obedience to God in this life the only means of re- 
demption from sins, to accountable beings. This 
broadening and flourishing of God's promises, so as to 
include those who die in willful disobedience to God, 
is a palpable perversion of Scripture. The audieuce 
can not have failed to observe that my opponent 
has a peculiar penchant for this kind. of evasion of the 
force of a passage. If he can find a slightly different 
translation, or if I have not quoted the exact words of 
a lengthy, context, he seems to think he has gained a 
point; though the passage in neither case has been 
changed in the least so far as the question in hand is 
concerned. 

But we are told that all men will be saved, reconcil- 



180 . FIKST PROPOSITION. 

ed, shall bow the knee to Christ, etc. I wish now 
to introduce a few thoughts in this connection. I 
think, perhaps, I have already referred to some of 
them ; hence I will only notice a few passages now in 
which the word "all" or its cognates appear. Univer- 
salists are fond of quoting this class of texts for the 
sake ol the little word <( all;" but we make this declar- 
ation that the expression "all men" or "all" as applied 
to men, never means a mathematical whole in all the 
Bible, unless, perhaps, in the expression : "And hath 
made of one blood all nations of men," etc. Acts 17 : 
26. Even this is scarcely an exception. We wish 
you to particularly notice this fact. I believe we 
have had before us already Psalm 22 : 27-31. 

" All the ends of the world shall remember and return unto the 
Lord : and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. 
For the kingdom is the Lord's : and he is the governor among the 
nations. All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship : all 
they that go down to the dust shall bow before him : and none can 
keep alive his own soul. A seed shall serve him ; it shall be ac- 
counted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall 
declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he 
hath done this." 

The Psalmist has just described the trial and cruci- 
fixon of Christ. Then he speaks in the 27th verse of 
all nations worshiping before Christ; and the commis- 
sion was to all nations ; and the Prophet that was to be 
raised up, (Deut. 18:15-18) was to all. But the 
question is, Did all the ends of the world remember 
and turn unto the Lord ! Do all the kindreds of 
the nations worship before him ? Have all heard and 
obeyed the great Prophet ? In Acts 3 : 22,23, we 
read : 

" For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the 
Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me ; 
him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. 
And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that 
Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." 

Yet, notwithstanding the imperative, " Shall," in 



MR. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 181 

this prediction, there were some who did not hear, 
and who were destroyed. And when you read on in 
the 22nd Psalm, you find in the 30th verse, that of 
"all the kindreds of the nations," not the whole, but 
" A seed,"" a generation," should serve him and 
declare his righteousness. Again, we read in Psalm 
86 : 9 : u All nations whom thou has made shall come 
and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy 
name." And here the same question applies, Do all 
nations worship him, and glorify his name ? Again 
I read from Isaiah 45 : 22-25 : 

" Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : for 
I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the 
■word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, 
That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 
Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength : 
even to him shall men come ; and all that are incensed against him 
shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justi- 
fied, and shall glory." 

Now here " all the ends of the earth " are invited to 
come to Christ, and God declares that he hath sworn 
by himself, and that the word is gone out of his mouth 
in righteousness, and shall not return. That unto 
him every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 
But when is this to occur ? Why, surely after men 
shall come to him, and say, "In the Lord have I right- 
eousness and strength." And even then some are 
to be ashamed. The prophet says, " All that are in- 
censed against him shall be ashamed. " It is " the seed 
of Israel" that shall be "justified and shall glory." 
And they will not be ashamed. Paul says, Romans 
9 : 33 ; " Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone, and 
rock of offense : and whosoever believeth on him 

SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED." But Some shall be " IN- 
CENSED against him," and shall be "ashamed." 
Romans 14: 10-12 is parallel to the above, and like 
it refers to the judgment. "But why doest thou judge 
thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy 



182 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment- 
seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the 
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue 
shall confess to God. So then every one of us ^hall 
give account of himself to God." At the judgment 
of the great day, they shall all be gathered, and shall 
all submit themselves to the righteous sentence of the 
Judge. I have already quoted Phil. 2: 9-12: 
" Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and 
given him a name which is above every name : That 
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
earth : and that every tongue should confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not 
as in my presence only, but now much more in my 
absence, work out your own salvation with fear and 
trembling. " But if the Universalist interpretation 
of this passage be true, what means the " fearing," the 
%i working," and the " trembling " to which the apostle 
exhorts men here ? 1 quote again Isaiah QQ : 15-24. 

" For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots 
like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with 
flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead 
with all flesh : and the slain of the Lord shall be many. They that 
sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind 
one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and 
the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord. For I knoAV 
their works and their thoughts : it shall come, that I will gather all 
nations and tongues ; and they shall come, and see my glory. And 
I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of 
them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the 
bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my 
fame, neither have seen my glory ; and they shall declare my glory 
among the Gentiles. And they shall bring all your brethren for 
an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in 
chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon SAvift beasts, to 
ray holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Is- 
rael bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. 
And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the 
Lord. For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will 



MR. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 183 

make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and 
your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new 
moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh 
come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, 
and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed 
against me : for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be 
quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." 

Now here the prophet shows how the Lord will 
"plead with all flesh. " It will be " by fire and by his 
sword," not, I think, with the purifying fire with 
which the Saviour was to purify, as referred to else- 
where. Here " the Slain of the Lord shall be 
many," and the picture is rather one of universal de- 
struction, than universal salvation. Then we read, " I 
will set a sign among them, and I will send those that 
escape of them unto the nations, in Tarshish, Pul, and 
Lud," etc. Now this evidently refers to the dispersion 
of Israel among the nations. And yet the " brethren " 
are to brought for an offering unto the Lord out of 
all nations, " upon horses, and in chariots, and in lit- 
ters, and upon mules," and " all flesh are to come and 
worship " before the Lord ; but, mark you, there will 
be seen the " carcasses of the men that have transgress- 
ed " against God, of whom it is said " for their worm 
shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and 
they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." There does 
not seem to be much Universalism after all in that 
pas-age. And in the 63rd chapter we read that he 
will tread down his enemies in his anger, and trample 
them [the speaker illustrating the action] in his fury, 
and their blood shall be sprinkled upon his garments, 
and he will stain all his raiment. That is the way he 
will deal with his enemies. I quote Rev, 15 : 4. 

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou 
only art holy : for all nations shall come and worship before thee ; 
for thy judgments are made manifest." 

Here " all nations," it is said, " shall come and wor- 
ship" before God. But immediately after, in the 16th 
chapter, we read of the pouring " out the vials of the 



184 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

wrath of God upon the earth." Besides, our Univers- 
alist friends are in the habit of saying that the predic- 
tions of the Revelations were fulfilled at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. I would like to know of my broth- 
er whether "all nations," in the mathematical 
sense, as including all individuals, were present at that 
time? If they were, at any rate we were absent. I 
would like to know how my brother likes the conse- 
quences of his own logic. Matt. 25 : 31-32: 

" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy 
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : And 
before him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall separate them 
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." 

Now, here "all nations" are gathered before the 
Son of Man. But the question is, are they ail saved ? 
The Saviour says not ; for he tells us that they shall be 
separated one from another as a shepherd divideth his 
sheep from the goats. And he goes on to give the 
sentences that shall be pronounced upon them : Upon 
the one part, "Come ye blessed," etc Upon the other 
part, " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 

I introduced some passages in which salvation is 
predicated of the blood of Christ; but my brother has 
not yet told us what he understands by it, or whether 
he holds that salvation is by the blood of Christ. In 
proof that in this position I agree with my brethren, 
I quote the following from President Milligan's Scheme 
of Redemption, page 235 : 

" It was then evident that the demands of justice, and all the 
claims of the Divine government, had been met and satisfied by 
the sin offering of Christ, even more fully and more perfectly than 
if all the penalties of violated law had been directly inflicted on the 
offending parties." 

I will now refer to Rom. 8 : 16-23. 

" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the 
children of God: and if children, then heirs: heirs of Gcd, and 
joint-heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with him, that we may 
be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this 



MR. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH REJOINDER. 185 

present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which 
shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature 
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature 
was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who 
hath subjected the same in hope ; because the creature itself also 
shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glori- 
ous liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole 
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And 
not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the 
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the 
adoption, to-wit, the redemption of our body." 

Universalists usually regard this as their Gibraltar, 
probably because such men as Olshausen, (a Restora- 
tionist) Barnes, Conybeare, Howson, Clarke, and oth- 
ers, regard it as " one of the most difficult passages 
in the whole Bible ; " and our friends seem to think : 
" If this passage does not teach Universalism, what 
does it teach "? We are now on the negative, a thing 
our oponent seems often to forget, and we only pro- 
pose to show that, whatever it may mean, it gives no 
support to the theory of our brother. The most that 
can be claimed is that it teaches a general resurrection, 
with special benefits, not to all, but to a certain class. 
I have Mr. Paige introducing, I believe, nine differ- 
ent explanations of this difficult passage; and endors- 
ing the most improbable of all. 

The scope of the apostle's argument may be gather- 
ed from the five preceding verses : 

" But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead 
dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quick- 
en your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you, There- 
fore, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the 
Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many 
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye 
have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear : but ye have 
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." 

Now notice that the 11th verse speaks of the resur- 
rection of the body, "he shall also quicken, or bring 
to life, your mortal bodies. The 13th verse presents a 
contrast: "if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die : 



186 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of 
the body, ye shall live." The 14th verse tells who 
are the Sons of God, viz.: " as many as are led by the 
Spirit of God." The 15th verse tells of the adoption. 
And the 23d verse concludes the matter by saying : 
" We (the spirit) ourselves groan within ourselves 
(the body, or creature) waiting for the adoption, to wit, 
the redemption of our body," in that glorious res- 
urrection, when "this mortal shall put on immortality." 
(1 Cor. 15 : 53.) But our Universalist friends deny 
the resurrection of the body. Ktisis, here rendered 
creature, my friend tells us means "mankind in general" 
The word occurs some nineteen times in the New 
Testament, and probably in some four or five mean- 
ings. (See Barnes and Paige in loco.) In 1 Pet. 2: 
3, it is rendered " every ordinance (ktisis) of man." 
In 2 Pet. 3: 4, it is rendered "the creation/' In 
Rev. 3: 14, we have ktiseos touTheou, "creation of 
God." We also refer to Rom. 1 : 20; Heb. 9:11, etc. 
But in none of these pa-sages can it mean "all men." 
In Mark 16 : 15 and Col. 1 : 23 it refers to men. 
But even here pasd ktisei can not refer to a mathemat- 
ical whole. The apostles were not to preach to infants, 
idiots, etc. So that even the " every creature," of Mark, 
and the u whole creation " of Romans 8 : 22, does not 
necessarily include a mathematical whole. If we 
should grant, then, that the " whole creation" of Rom. 
8 : 22 is parallel with the " every creature " of Mark and 
refers to men, it would not serve my opponent/ s pur- 
pose. But you will observe farther, that it is not said 
the " whole creation " was to be " delivered from the 
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the 
children- of God." It is not pasd ktisei, or " whole 
creation"; but the ktisis, or creature. But if ha kitsis 
(the creature), of verses 19, 20, 21, means all men, 
what does pasa ha ktisis (the whole creation) of the 
22nd verse mean ? And not only so, but worse still, 



MR. HUGHES' CLOSING SPEECH. 187 

what of the " not only they, but ourselves also" of 
the 23rd verse ? Here we have 3 on my brother's inter- 
pretation, all men ; then all all men ; then all all 
men and " ourselves" besides! That beats Zachary 
Taylor's, "the whole world and the rest of mankind!" 
Mr. Man ford says (Manford and Franklin's Debate, p. 
143), "Sons of God" and "ourselves," evidently 
mean believers: the "saved by hope" and those " led 
by the Spirit of God " of verses 14 and 24. If so, to 
whom does "we" refer? I might refer here to dif- 
ferent positions which have been taken in explanation 
of this passage, and conflicting with that of my op- 
ponent, but I think I have shown conclusively the 
absurdity of his position on the passage in question. 
[Time up.] 

MR. HUGHES' CLOSING SPEECH. 

Brethren Moderators : — Before what the brother 
has just said grows cold, I will say a word about it. 
He objects to the word ktisis (creature) meaning " all 
mankind," because of the peculiar phraseology of the 
passage, noting the words not only " they," (the crea- 
ture), but "ourselves" also. Now, the apostle means 
to say simply, that Christians having the first fruits of 
the Spirit, makes them no exception in the general 
" groaning " and " travailing " of " the whole creation." 
There is much the same kind of an expression used in 
1 Jphn 2:2: " And he is the propitiation for OUR sins, 
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world." But brother C. says this passage 
teaches the doctrine of a general resurrection. Very 
good. "Will he now tell us what word in the passage 
means man as the subject of a general resurrection? 
He can point to no word, but the word ktisis, {creature), 
and so he defeats himself in showing that the word 
creature here means all mankind, and that I am right 



188 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

in teaching that mankind will be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption " into the glorious liberty of 
the children of God. 

He refers to Mr. Paige's comment on this passage in 
Romans, and says Mr. Paige introduces some nine or 
ten interpretations of this particular passage. But does 
he mean to say that Mr. Paige himself gives this many 
interpretations of the passage in question ? Now the 
facts are, Mr. Paige quotes from Prof. Stuart, who 
gives the various views of different commentators.- 
These Mr. Paige recites, and refutes them all, except 
the last, in which he shows that ktisis (creature) means 
mankind in genera f , and pasa ha ktisis (the whole crea- 
tion) means all mankind. So much, then, for his refer- 
ence to Mr. Paige. 

But he says, in reference to the definition of these 
words in Romans 8th, that I am like General Taylor 
and his "whole world and all the rest of mankind." 
I wonder what in the world my friend and all his 
brethren would have done if it had not been for Gener- 
al Taylor's blunder! It was very fortunate for him 
that General Taylor used that expression. I have 
never had a discussion yet thereon, I believe, but what 
General Taylor's blunder has been brought up. But 
now I suppose John blundered also in his language, did 
he? Are the persons included under the personal pro- 
noun " ours " there, also included in the phrase " the 
ivhole world f " of course they are.. Now it is said here 
(Rom. 8 : 20) : 

" For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but 
by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." 

Is not that true of all mankind ? Then the text de 
clares that, as the creature was subjected to vanity, it 
was not willingly, but by reason of him who hath sub- 
jected the same in hope. " Bacause," the apostle 
proceeds to say, "the creature itself also shall be deliv- 
ered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious 



189 

liberty of the children of God." Now what does the 
phrase, " the children of God " mean here ? I think 
it means those who have received the first fruits of the 
Spirit, the " Sons of God/' through whom comes the 
revelation of a glorious deliverance from the bondage 
of corruption, and of a redemption of the entire body 
of humanity. Now, Paul says that we who have re- 
ceived the " first fruits of the Spirit " are no exception 
to this general groaning of the creation. We are also 
waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the 
body, the body of humanity. 

" For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth 
in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, 
which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan 
within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of 
our body." 

But suppose that those who have the first fruits of the 

Spirit are not included in the " creation," then the word 

creation must refer to the sinful portion of mankind, 

and as they are to be delivered into the glorious liberty 

of the children of God — I suppose brother C. will be 

kind enough to admit the salvation of those having the 

Spirit. That is a Gibraltar, my friend, rearing its head 

aloft as a mighty bulwark, and a good many frail barks, 

like yours, have been stranded upon it, in attempting to 

capture it, and you will be no exception to the rule ! 

He brings up Eom. 8 : 35-39. 

" Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribula- 
tion, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or 
sword ? " etc. 

He wants to know what love the apostle is speaking 
of here. Why, " the love of God in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." His love whose grace has been manifested to 
us in Christ. The love of God in Christ Jesus, not our 
love for God. But who is this love manifested for ? 
For Christians only ? No. 

" For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died 
for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die ; yet 



190 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But 
God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sin- 
ners, Christ died for us." Eom. 5 : 6-8. 

Christ died for all. His love was towards the world 
of mankind. 

" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosover believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
world ; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3 : 
16, 17. 

Who, then, shall separate us from his love? Paul 
answers and tells us that there is nothing — no power in 
earth or heaven, in this world or in that which is to 
come, that can separate us from his love. If then this 
be true, what can prevent the final holiness and hap- 
piness of all mankind? 

He says the word " incorruptible," in 1 Cor. 15th, is 
applied to Christians, and not to others. He has been 
wanting me to make the condition of the righteous in 
heaven depend upon the meaning of the word aidnios, 
so as to help him out with his proposition, but he has 
failed in that. Will he now admit the word " incor- 
ruptible ,, to describe endless security to the righteous? 
But I have proved that all that died in Adam are to 
be made alive in Christ ; and that as all died in Adam, 
all will be made alive in Christ, and that they are to 
be raised in incorruption and in glory ; and as all are to 
be made alive in Christ in incorruplion, their state is 
a final one. He has not met that argument. When 
that day comes in which they will be thus raised, I 
wonder if there will be any that may be drawn away 
by the devil. I wonder if that is not & final state ; and 
if the words immortal and incorruptible are not applied 
to the condition of all mankind then. I rather think 
there is some " lightning," as well as " thunder " in 
that argument, Bro. Carpenter. 

He thinks I have been going to obscure passages to 
prove my doctrine, and getting the " doctors " to help 



191 

me, and lie thinks my doctrine needs the doctors. 
"Well, I know his does, and he had better have it at- 
tended to for it will soon be past the help of the doc- 
tors. But why do the doctors of divinity think these 
passages obscure? Why, for the reason that they hold 
to the doctrine of eternal misery, and they see that 
these passages stand in the way of that doctrine, and so 
they call them " obscure." That is all the reason, and 
not because these Scriptures are at all difficult to any 
one who reads them without preconceived opinions or 
prejudices. For they assert most clearly and positively 
the final salvation of all. You will notice that my 
brother bases his own arguments on words and passages 
with respect to the sense and meaning of which the 
commentators or doctors are disagreed. The great ab- 
surdity is that a doctrine so fearful as his, should be 
taught in such an obscure manner to those in danger of 
its awful consequences. 

He says, in reference to " every tongue confessing 
that Christ is Lord," etc., that before the judgment seat 
they shall all submit to the sentence Christ shall pro- 
nounce ; that is, they will be compelled to submit to 
the power of his wrath. But I believe men are sub- 
mitting themselves now — that they are before the judg- 
ment seat now, and that they will continue to submit 
themselves to his authority in willing obedience until 
the work is finished and the declaration is fulfilled. 
And so all things will combine to the one end, which 
is the universal acknowledgment of Christ, and the re- 
sult is the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. 

He refers to Isa. 45 : 22-25 : 

" Look unto me, and be ye 1 saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I 
am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word 
is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That 
unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely 
shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength ; even to 
him shall men come ; and all that are incensed against him shall be 
ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and 
shall glory." 



192 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

And he says that is to be fulfilled at the judgment. 
But if he reads the passage carefully, he will see that it 
applies both to the present and the future states. Now 
I want to know, if all that are incensed against God, 
when they shall become ashamed of their disobedience 
against him, will they be incensed against him any 
longer ? And if they are not incensed against him, and 
are ashamed of their sins, will they not be reconciled to 
him? 

But he says that believers are not ashamed, and so 

these are not believers, and are not reconciled. Is that 

so ? Let me quote : 

" What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now 
ashamed?" Kom. 6 : 21. 

Now, mark, Paul says here that believers were 
ashamed of their wrong course, when they were brought 
to see aright, and so there is nothing inconsistent in the 
fact of being ashamed of sin. And so when it shall be 
said, "all that are incensed against him shall be 
ashamed, " that does not militate against the fact of 
their being reconciled, and of their final holiness and 
happiness. 

Again, I read in Ezek. 16 : 60-63. 

" Nevertheless, I will remember my covenant with thee in the 
days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting cov- 
enant. Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when 
thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger : and 
I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant. 
And I will establish my covenant with thee ; and thou shalt know 
that I am the Lord ; that thou mayest remember, and be confound- 
ed, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I 
am 'pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord 
God." 

Here, after they had received the Spirit, and had 
been restored, the} 7 were to be ashamed and confounded, 
for what they had done while transgressing against 
God; and that too when God was pacified toward them 
for all that they had done ; so the word " shame " is not 
at all in my way in the application of the passage on 



ME. HUGHES' CLOSING SPEECH. 193 

which the brother hangs his objections, introduced 
from Isaiah, and his use of it fails in the argument he 
has based upon it. 

He is afraid I am getting to be a " Soul-sleeper," or 
Spiritualist. Not very fast, Bro. Carpenter. The 
brother will remember that it is said that when Paul 
was caught up, he was taken to the " third heaven." 
(2 Cor. 12 : 2.) And it is said of Christ : 

" He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above 
all heavens, that he might fill all things." Eph. 4 : 10. 

Christ said (John 14 : 2) " In my Father's house are 
many mansions." And I said that in the Universe 
of God there are many grades of being, rising, if you 
please, sphere above sphere — condition above condi- 
tion ; and Christ ascended to the very head of the Uni- 
verse ; and the work of reconciling unto God all things 
which are in heaven and which are in earth shall go on 
till the absolute and gracious will of God is finished 
and completed. Then sin shall be destroyed, and ho- 
liness and happiness shall finally be secured to all crea- 
tures throughout the Universe. That must be, or the 
word of God must fail. 

But " Universalists deny the atonement." Not 
much. Now my brother says he believes in a vicari- 
ous atonement, as he explains it. So do I believe in 
an atonement, if he will allow me to explain it. You 
noticed when he thought he was going to catch me on 
that point, yet he in turn slid out of it himself very 
adroitly. He got around it in a very adroit way. He 
does not believe in a vicarious atonement as the Pres- 
byterians, or Methodists, or Congregationalists do. 
But he believes in it as he explains it ! Now that was 
a feeler for sympathy here. He has been calling him- 
self " orthodox " here to get the sympathy of orthodox 
people here. Now he wants me to say that Christ died 
to make a vicarious atonement for the sins of men. 
But when I make reply to him, he says he believes in 
13 



194 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

a vicarious atonement as he understands it ! He does 
not like jungles, or thickets, but he wants everybody 
to come out, and to show their true positions. Why 
does not he do it? 

He wants me to say whether Christ had two human 
parents, or only one. Well, I will say that I believe 
he had only one human parent. I believe in his mi- 
raculous conception. I will inform him that I believe 
in the divinity of Christ, and so do my brethren ; but 
that is something quite different from the deity of Christ, 
which we do not accept. 

He goes again to that " all," about which he has 
said so much. But he forgets the rule I laid down in 
a former speech, namely : that where the word " all," 
or its equivalent, occurs, if there is nothing in the text, 
context or subject matter to limit it, it is to be taken 
in its literal sense ; and where the reverse is the case, 
it is to be taken as so limited. The authorities decide 
how a word must be understood unless there is some 
reason forbidding it. I quoted also several passages 
which relate to the salvation of all men, where the 
word is not so limited, and in which, therefore, it is to 
be taken in the unlimited sense ; and these passages 
teach the " final holiness and happiness of all men." 

He brings up Rom. 8 : 11, and applies the passage 
to the doctrine of a general resurrection. He holds 
that there is to be a physical resurrection, and that this 
passage of Scripture teaches a resurrection of the bod- 
ies of men. Let me read . 

" But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the 
Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit 
of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is 
dead because of sin ; but the spirit is life, because of righteousness." 
Verses 9, 10. 

Now, that is while they are living in this world, 

mark you. I read on : 

" But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead 
dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 



MR. HUGHES' CLOSING SPEECH. 195 

quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelletb in you. 
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, to live after the 
flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die ; but if ye through 
the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as 
many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." 
Verses 11-14. 

Now notice the " ifs " of this passage — " If the Spirit 
of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in 
you/' etc. The promise here is a conditional promise, 
and the "quickening of your mortal bodies" is a con- 
ditional thing, depending upon the indwelling of the 
Spirit within them. And the passage cannot possibly 
be applied to a general physical resurrection, but must 
mean a quickening of the body in this life into acting 
as an instrument for righteousness, as in Eom. 12 : 1 : 
" I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of 
God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, 
acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." 
I would like to know whether the bodies of the right- 
eous are to be raised only ? His argument so makes 
it ; and so only those who have the Spirit of Christ in 
them, will ever have a resurrection, and he cannot be- 
lieve in a general resurrection after all. Certainly that 
must be the case if this passage applies to the resurrec- 
tion to immortality. 

He refers again to what Christ said to the Jews. 
Now I say that whatever he said to the Jews he said 
the same to the disciples. He cannot get around that. 
Let us see. He said to the Jews : 

" I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and ye shall die in your 
sins ; whither I go, ye can not come." John 8 : 21. 

Now that is what he said to the Jews. And he said 
to the disciples : 

" Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek 
me ; and as I said unto the Jews, whither I go, ye cannot come ; so 
now I say unto you." John 13 : 33. 

And here the language is just as explicit, and as 
clearly applied to the disciples, as in the other case it 






196 FIEST PROPOSITION. 

is to the Jews. In whatever sense the Jews could not 
come to him, then, in the very same sense the disciples 
could not come to him. And if the Jews could not 
come to him because they were to be eternally pun- 
ished, then he meant that the disciples could not come 
to him because they were to be eternally punished ! 
Does the brother believe that ? And then he explains 
what he means in what he said to Peter : 

" Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou ? Jesus 
answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now ; but 
thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why 
can not I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. 
Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake ? 
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou hast 
denied me thrice." Verses 36-38. 

But the brother says there is a saving clause ; that 
here is a promise to the disciples that they should fol- 
low him afterwards, that was not made to the Jews, 
who should die in their sins. But Peter understood 
Christ as replying to his personal question relating 
to himself, for, with reference to what Christ had said, 
he said : " Lord, why can not /follow thee now? I 
will lay down my life for thy sake." But the Master 
said : " Thou canst not follow me now ; but thou shalt 
follow me hereafter." Now you will find a refer- 
ence here in the margin to 2 Peter 1 : 14, 15 : 

" Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even 
as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeav- 
or that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always 
in remembrance." 

That explains the way in which Peter was to follow 
the Saviour, and shows the meaning of this phrase as 
used by Christ in these passages. And my brother 
can never prove the salvation of the apostles, if he 
makes John 8 : 21 prove the eternal damnation of the 
Jews. I will let that matter rest there. 

Having now noticed, I believe, all the important 
points in my brother's speech, I will now proceed to a 
brief 



197 



RECAPITULATION 

of the arguments presented in support of the proposi- 
tion under consideration : 

" The Scriptures teach the final holiness 
and happiness of all mankind. 

In entering upon the discussion of this proposition, 
I first affirmed the grave importance of the question, 
declaring that the proposition accorded with the sound- 
est reason and the plainest declarations of Sacred Writ ; 
that it satisfies the requirements of the intellect and 
the most benevolent disposition of the heart. Then I 
defined the terms of the proposition, showing that the 
proof in this discussion was to be taken from the Script- 
ures of the Old and New Testaments, which were to be 
interpreted according to the recognized rules and laws 
by which the teachings of any other book or writing 
was to be interpreted. I stated that I was to affirm 
the final state of all men, which, I said, meant their 
last state, beyond which there is no other; that this 
last or final state of all men was to be one of holiness 
and happiness. 

My first argument was from the nature of man. I 
showed from Scripture proofs that man by nature is body, 
soul, and spirit; that the body is that in which the soul 
and spirit reside ; that the soul is the principle of ani- 
mal life, and that the spirit is the real man, to be in- 
vested in the resurrection with a new spiritual body, 
clothed with immortality, and to live forever in the 
spirit world. 

I showed that in this life man is a free, intelligent, 
moral, and responsible being, and that his responsibil- 
ity necessitates the idea of his knowledge of the law, 
and his ability to obey it, which constitutes his moral 
agency. And I argued that death does nothing to 
change his nature in these respects, therefore his re- 
sponsibility and moral agency will remain after death. 



198 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

And I showed that, inasmuch as the temptations that 
come through the body do much to hinder men here, 
that they will be in a better state for moral improve- 
ment when freed from its appetites and passions. I 
used 1 John 2 : 15-17 ; James 1 : 14, 15 ; Rom. 8 : 6-8, 
and Gal. 5 : 16-21, to establish these points. 

I showed that man, being made in the image of God, 
has that in his nature which is attracted towards God, 
which would result in his final holiness and happiness. 
I believe you will say that the brother has not met this 
argument, and it therefore remains, and must remain, 
irrefutable. 

My second argument was from the nature of God. I 
showed that God is love, that his benevolence was con- 
cerned in the creation of man, that the design of man's 
creation was founded in infinite wisdom and has all the 
potency of infinite power. I showed that God is om- 
nipotent in the realm of mind as well as in the realm 
of matter, and that he is omnipresent ; that he can 
therefore carry out his plans throughout the Universe. 
I showed that his power is co-operative with his good- 
ness and mercy; that he is unchangeable, of one mind, 
so that he cannot be turned aside from his plans ; and 
that what he both designed and purposed he will per- 
form. These points were proved by various quotations 
from the Scriptures, and I showed how these would all 
combine to secure the end proposed, the final holiness 
and happiness of mankind. 

My third argument was based on the holiness of 
God ; that he is holy, and therefore opposed to sin ; 
that holiness is stronger than sin, and must overcome 
sin ; and that the holiness of God necessitates its ulti- 
mate overthrow. 

My fourth argument was based on the justice of 
God. I showed that the justice of God could be satis- 
fied in only one way, that is in universal submission on 
the part of all to the divine law ; that " the end of the 



MR. HUGHES' CLOSING SPEECH. 199 

commandment is charity" and that the justice of God 
required that this end should be consummated. I 
showed also that the justice of God could never be sat- 
isfied in the endless misery of his creatures, for justice 
can only demand a penalty in proportion to the guilt of 
the offender. So that the justice of God, working with 
his love and his power, must result in the final holi- 
ness and happiness of all God's creatures. 

My fifth argument was from the paternity of God — 
that God is our Father, the Father of our spirits — that 
we are the " offspring of God " — that this relation is a 
real one, that it is a tie of nature, and that this relation 
not only exists here, but continues forever. That his 
love is infinitely greater than an earthly parent's can 
be — that it is greater than a mother's love, so that he 
will never cast off his children, or prevent them from 
coming to him. 

My sixth argument was on the revealed will and pur- 
pose of God. Here I showed that he wills the salva- 
tion of all men, that his will is a will of purpose, and 
must be fulfilled, and that his will cannot fail, for he 
worketh all things after the counselof his own will. 
And I stated that either God can save all men, and 
will not, which conflicts with his goodness and his re- 
vealed purpose ; or he would save all men, but can not, 
which conflicts with his power ; or he will and can save 
all, which sustains my proposition, and agrees both 
with the divine attributes, and with the teachings of 
the Scriptures. As he wills the salvation of all, so 
therefore all men will be finally saved. 

To these arguments from the divine attributes my 
brother objects that sin co-exists with the attributes of 
God now, and therefere may co-exist with them forev- 
er. But I think that it was not the purpose of God to 
prevent the existence of sin now ; that his plan pro- 
posed a condition of discipline for man; that having 
created him low down in the scale of being, " subject 



200 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

to vanity," he purposed that he should finally be 
brought up to a state of holiness and freedom from sin. 
Thus calling out in full development and exercise man's 
noble capabilities and powers. That it was his ulti- 
mate purpose to " gather together in one all things in 
Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in 
earth, even in him." And that this purpose would be 
fulfilled, and all would become holy and happy. And in 
answer to his objection that the will of God was de- 
feated here and might be hereafter, I showed that his 
will relative to the final salvation of all mankind is a 
will of determination, and cannot therefore be defeated. 

My seventh argument related to Christ's mission and 
ministry. I showed that this was to save all mankind, 
and I proved it by Luke 19 : 10 ; John 4 . 34 ; John 3 : 
17 ; 1 John 4:14. I showed that to carry this out 
universal dominion was given him, and fullness of pow- 
er in heaven and earth to overcome all difficulties and 
complete his work. I showed that he had fullness of 
power, and means at his command adequate to the 
accomplishment of this work. I showed that his min- 
istry is to all both in this and the future world. This I 
proved by his preaching to men in the future state, 
( 1 Pet. 3: 18-20) and because he governs all as judge 
of both living and dead. ( 1 Pet. 4 : 5- 6 ) And I proved 
that this ministry would result in success ; that his 
purpose will be finally fulfilled. 

My eighth argument was on the Abrahamic promise. 
I showed that this promise is universal in it terms — 
that all the families of the earth — all the nations of the 
earth — ail the kindreds of the earth — were to be bless- 
ed in him. And I showed from Alexander Campbell 
that this promise included all mankind. And I show- 
ed that this promise included the salvation of the race, 
that it was to be fulfilled through the resurrection, 
which was included in it, and that therefore the res- 
urrection must be a blessing and not a curse. I showed 



201 

that this promise included justification and the turning 
of men away from their iniquities, and therefore their 
final holiness and happiness. I showed also that the 
promise was made sure by the oath as well as by the 
immutable promise of God, and that it could not 
be defeated; the law cannot defeat it by its penalties; 
man's unbelief cannot defeat it; and it is secured to us 
in Christ, who is the grand depository and means of 
blessings and in whom it is to be fulfilled, and all 
men shall have " eternal life." This argument, I am 
sure the brother has failed to refute. 

My ninth argument was on Christ's reconciling all to 
God ; in proof of which I quoted 2 Cor. 5 : 14-21 and 
Col. 1 : 13-21. I showed here that "all things were 
mad*? by him and for him." That all are to be recon- 
ciled in him, and that this reconcilation is to be univer- 
sal — that it is to embrace all things which are in heaven 
and which are on earth. And I showed that this 
reconciliation extends to the future state — to the things 
in the heavens — that Christ is engaged to work out 
this reconciliation — that in Christ dwells the ability to 
subdue all things to himself, and that it will be done. 
This argument the brother has failed to overthrow. 

My tenth argument was on Christ's drawing all men 
to him, which I proved by John 12 : 31-33 ; John 6 : 
44-45. I showed here that he is to draw to him as 
many as he died for, that he " died for all," and 
hence would draw all to him. And I showed that this 
would be done by his word and Spirit operating upon 
all — and that all should be taught of God. 

In my eleventh argument I showed that all will 
come to Christ ; that to come to him is to believe on 
him, to accept him, and to be saved ; that all are given 
to him, and that all who are given to him will come to 
him. 

In my twelfth argument I showed that all will sub- 
mit to him, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall 



202 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

bow and every tongue confess. And that this includes 
" things in heaven, and things in earth, and things un- 
der the earth," which, as I proved by Doctors of Di- 
vinity, means all mankind. My brother met these 
arguments by saying, " Do all come? Do all submit? 
Are all drawn to him ?" But I showed that these terms 
refer to God's purpose to save all through Christ, and 
though all have not yet come, yet all will turn and 
come to Christ, or else his plainest and most positive 
declarations are untrue. 

My thirteenth argument was from Eom 5 : 12-21; 
that all are to be constituted righteous. Here I show- 
ed that by one man sin entered into the world, and 
death moral by sin, and so passed upon all men because 
all had sinned. But that the gift is to the many (to 
all) unto justification of life. That as by one man's 
disobedience the may (all) were constituted sinners, 
so by the obedience of Christ the many ( all) are to be 
made righteous. I showed that as the sin was actual 
transgression, so would the righteousness be actual per- 
sonal righteousness also. But that if all men were 
made actually righteous, all would be finally holy and 
so therefore happy. I met my brother's objection here, 
that this passage applies to the righteous only, by 
showing that the phrases "all men," "the many," 
mean all mankind ; and he does not deny but that these 
phrases so mean. Besides, he admits that this passage 
teaches that all which was lost in Adam, is regained 
through Christ. 

My fourteenth argument was from Rom 8 : 18-23. 
Here I showed that the creature, made subject to vani- 
ty, is subjected in hope, and is to be delivered into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God. That the 
word "creature," or "creation," refers to intelligent 
beings. And I quoted authorities to show that it ap- 
plied to man, and to all men. I showed that there is 
to be a redemption of the body of humanity. That 



MR. HUGHES' CLOSING SPEECH. 203 

when all this is ful filled, all will be holy and happy. 
My brother applies this passage to the doctrine of a 
general resurrection. If so, then, it refers to all 
mankind, and a deliverance of all mankind into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God. 

My fifteenth argument was on Christ and the resur- 
rection. Here I showed that all the dead are to be 
raised, that after this resurrection they die no more, 
they are immortal ; they are like the angels of God in 
heaven ; that they all live unto God and are the chil- 
dren of God being the children of the resurrection. 
I showed that this would be the final state of all men, 
and that that state would be a state of holiness and 
happiness. To my brother's objections to this view of 
these texts I have already replied in your hearing. 

My sixteenth argument was founded on the resur- 
rection and consummation in Christ, as set forth in 
1 Cor. 15ch. Here I showed that all will be raised 
and made alive in Christ; that "as in Adam all 
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;" that 
to be made alive in Christ is to be made alive in the 
image of the heavenly; that all are to be raised to one 
state of glory, of power, of incorruptibility and immor- 
tality ; that death is to be destroyed ; that as death is 
the last enemy, that there will be no enemies to man 
after the resurrection. I showed that death is to be 
swallowed up in victory, and that the Lord God will 
wipe away tears from all iaces, and take away the 
rebuke of his people from off all the earth. That sin, 
and tears, and woe of every kind shall be done away, 
and death itself shall die. Then Christ shall be crown- 
ed with glory and honor, and the sons of God shall 
shout for joy. And in that day shall the glad song of 
salvation arise from the entire race of man, and then 
God shall be all in all ! 

" Then 
God's own soft hand shall wipe the tears 



204 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

From every weeping eye, 

And pains, and groans, and griefs, and fears, 
And death itself shall die." 

Thanking you for you respectful attention, I submit 
my arguments for your consideration. ( Time expired.) 

ME. CARPENTER'S CLOSING REJOINDER. 

I noticed in my brother's last speech a great many 
" I have proved" and " therefores." " This is so, 
therefore such and such a thing is so." That is a way- 
he has of leading you to think that there is something 
away back in this discussion that sustains the conclu- 
sions he now makes. But I think you will see that 
his " therefores " are not what are needed, but proper 
arguments from which to legitimately draw them in 
order to sustain this proposition. 

He refers to Gen. Taylor's blunder, and says it has 
been thrown at him in nearly every debate he has 
ever held. That is for the reason that he has fallen 
into a similar blunder every time. He ought to have 
learned better by this time ; and not to have exposed 
himself to such a reflection. 

He again refers to Rom. 8th, and asks for proof that 
the body and the resurrection are there under consid- 
eration. Well, the 13th and 23d verses settle those 
matters. They show that our " mortal bodies are to be 
quickened," — to have a " redemption " from the grave. 
That it can not refer to any moral quickening is evi- 
dent from the fact that the language is addressed to 
Christians who had already been thus quickened and 
redeemed. It can only refer to the redemption from 
the tomb. He blunders, too, in reference to the sons 
of God, since these Christians here addressed already 
held that moral relation. Thus you see, my opponent 
is beaten at every point on this passage. 

Again, in Isa. 25 : 6-8, " his people " are under consid- 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING REJOINDER. 205 

eration. He says the language to Peter in reference to 
following Christ is in the singular, and that Peter un- 
derstood it in the singular, and said, " Why can not 1 
follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy 
sake." But Peter is the spokesman in Matt. 16 : 13- 
20, and in numerous other passages where it will not 
do to confine the Saviour's language to him alone. In- 
deed, all the epistles are addressed to individuals or 
certain congregations, but all parties in similar condi- 
tions may appropriate the things promised in them ; 
and so what he said to Peter would apply to the rest 
of the disciples who were in similar circumstances, 
but would not apply to the Jews who would u die in 
their sins," and on that account " could not come to 
Christ," who is now in the heavenly state, beyond 
death. He says that Christ refers there to Peter's 
death. But he does not refer to it in fact — he does 
not refer to it at all. Christ was going to heaven, and 
he refers to Peter's meeting him there. But my broth- 
er says it refers to Peter's death, and that Christ said 
Peter could not lay down his life for him then. But 
why not? Could he not die for him? But the Sa- 
viour said to Peter : " Whither I go, thou canst not 
follow me now ; but thou shalt follow me afterwards." 
The time would come when he should go to him and 
be with him in the "Father's house." 

As to his "alls," he has failed to show in a single in- 
stance that there is any necessity for interpreting them in 
the sense in which he would have us understand them. 
Pie has failed to show that in the passages that he has 
introduced, "all" includes a mathematical whole, and 
it is something that he never can show. In failing 
here, one of his chief props falls. 

He says I pressed him on the divinity of Christ ; 
and now he gives up, and confesses that Christ is di- 
vine — that he had only one earthly parent — and is di- 
vine. I was glad to hear that, although he distin- 



206 FIKST PKOPOSITION. 

guishes between the deity and the divinity of Christ. 
When a man acknowledges the divinity of Christ, I 
can call him "brother" in a sense in which I could 
not before. A man that acknowledges this doctrine, I 
can take by the hand and call "brother, because we 
are agreed upon what I regard as the vital doctrine, 
beyond all others, of Christianity. I am glad Bro. 
Hughes has taken that position. I am fearful that all 
his brtehren do not agree with him there. 

He says that I do not believe in a vicarious atone- 
ment. I do in the sense of substitution or impartation, 
and so do my brethren; If that is not enough to cover 
that question, I do not know what is. On that I stand, 
and ground my hope for salvation through Jesus Christ. 
In this sense I understand that grand passage in Isaiah 
53rd which says Christ was " wounded for our transgres- 
sions, and bruised for our iniquities, etc. But now I 
should like to know if my brother holds to the atone- 
ment in any such sense ? 

But he speaks of Christ ascending far above the 
heavens; and he says there are " conditions on condi- 
tions, and spheres above spheres." Christ has gone 
up, through all these, I suppose, to the very highest 
seat in the Universe ! I hud always supposed there 
were aerial heavens, and the planetary, or starry heav- 
ens, and then the heaven where God dwells ; but he 
has got into his head these Spiritualistic "spheres;" 
and I suppose holds that Christ went up through these 
spheres, and he is going to have men rise from one 
sphere to another sphere, until they reach the top. 
That is what I understand the Spiritualists to hold. 
To what extremities will not my brother be driven to 
escape the Bible doctrine of retribution ? But I 
thought Christ went directly into heaven itself, there 
to appear before God for us, and that he would come 
and take us directly to that home in our Father's 
house. (John 13 : 35.) My brother is welcome to 



ME. CAEPENTEE'S CLOSING EEJOINDEE. 207 

his Spiritualism, though I hope he will get out of it 
soou. 

He alludes to the term " shame," as applied to 
Christians. It is enough, perhaps, to say that 
" shame " is not used in the same sense when applied 
to the righteous, as when applied to the wicked, in the 
passage he has quoted. When applied to the wicked, 
it means confusion ; when spoken of the righteous, it 
means simply regret for former sins. But the feeling 
in the two cases is entirely different, and therefore his 
argument fails. 

He speaks of the resurrection of Christ, and says, 
that as all died in Adam, so will all be made alive in 
Christ. Bat is this resurrection necessarily a promised 
blessing? We think not ; for some are to be " raised 
to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan. 12 : 2.) 
But Peter tells us who are to receive the real benefits 
of Christ's resurrection. Let me quote 1 Peter 1 : 
3-5: 

" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, 
according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a 
lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an 
inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, 
reserved in heaven." 

But who for ? For everybody ? No : 

" For you who are kept by the power of God through faith unto 
salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." 

But if everybody is going to be there, why these 
"reserved seats?' 7 If everybody is to occupy them, 
why does he say "foe you? " But no ; it is for the 
righteous, who are reconciled through Christ. 

I quote again : 

" Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious prom- 
ises ; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, hav- 
ing escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." 2 
Peter 1 : 4. 

Now, some might be partakers of the divine nature, 
and some might not. " Might " denotes here priv- 



208 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

ilegp, not absolute certainty. And so the apostle ex- 
horts them : 

" And besides this, giving all diiligence, add to your faith, virtue ; 
and to virtue, knowledge ; and to knowledge, temperance ; and to tem- 
perance, patience ; and to patience, godliness ; and to godliness, 
brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly kindness, charity. For if these 
things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be 
barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, 
and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore 
the rather, brethren, give diiligence to make your calling and election 
sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall ; for so an entrance 
shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting king- 
dom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (Verses 5-11.) 

Now, notice here that their " entrance into the king- 
dom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," depends 
upon their complying with the requirements here 
made. If they did not, they would not enter ; and 
that disproves my brother's argument on the promises. 

He refers again to the Will of God. He says God 
wills the salvation of all men, and that his will must be 
fulfilled ; therefore, all men must be saved. But he 
fails to meet the objection that the will of God is de- 
feated here, or is conditioned on man's actions ; that it 
may, therefore, be defeated there so far as man's happi- 
ness is concerned ; and he fails to prove, not that all 
may come to Christ, but that all must and will come to 
him. 

He refers to the question, Rom. 8 : 35 : " Who 
shall separate us from the love of Christ ? " etc. But 
now, is this Christ's love for us, or our love for Christ ? 
I ask again, to which the apostle refers in this passage ? 
I take it to be our love for him, and I sav that we can 
separate ourselves from that love. I have already re- 
ferred to Paul, who kept his body under subjection, 
lest, after having preached the gospel to others, he him- 
self also should become a castaway. 1 Cor. 9 : 27. It 
is not, then, an absolute impossibility of which he 
speaks ; but it means that while we love God we are 



MR. 

secure. " Who shall separate us ? " Us Christians 
who are loving and obeying God. 

He says Rom. 8 : 19-23 is his Gibraltar. But Gib- 
raltar was captured, and we have captured his Gibral- 
tar, and will hold it. We have shown the absurdity of 
his interpretation of the passage, that he makes it read 
" all men," then " all all men," and then " all, all all 
men," and ourselves besides ! This beats Zachary 
Taylor's message all to pieces. We have fairly cap- 
tured that fortification, and will hold it in spite of 
him. We have shown that Rom. 8th teaches the doc- 
trine of a general resurrection — a resurrection of the 
body, at which the righteous will be glorified, and for 
which'they are waiting ; and that it does not teach any 
such doctrine as " the final holiness and happines of all 
men." I do not think I need hold you longer on this 
point. 

RECAPITULATION 

of the arguments presented under this proposition : 

My brother's first argument was on the nature of 
man. Now we do not differ in this, that God made 
man a free, intelligent, and responsible agent. But 
we have shown that man has abused his freedom. 
Though created " good and very good," and placed in 
Eden with all its innocence, and holy influences and 
associations, man became a sinner, wandering further 
and further from God. That he is a rebel now, that 
the sinner's pathway is diverging farther and farther 
from God as we last know of him, and we have given in 
your hearing the words which will be in the mouth of 
the Saviour at the last day : " Depart — Depart ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and 
his angels." We showed you that instead of all being 
" attracted to the Saviour " then, some will be driven 
away, and that at the very time when my opponent 
14 



210 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

says they will reach a final state of holiness and hap- 
piness. 

And we showed you that the circumstances sur- 
rounding the sinner in eternity — thus separated from 
God, and confined with all the wicked that have ever 
lived, would not be as favorable, even if they had the 
opportunity of salvation, as here. And yet he is go- 
ing to have these men that rejected Christ here, reform 
themselves after death over there ! and you know I 
have been calling for a " commission " for anybody to 
preach, to them after death. Well, he turned over to 
the account of the preaching to the spirits in prison to 
prove his point here. But that is no commission to 
him, or to anybody else. And at best that preaching 
was only to those who have not heard the gospel here ; 
and if men reject that gospel here, why may they not 
reject it there? He can never prove, as he has not 
proved, that the preaching of the gospel there would 
be any more successful than its preaching here. But 
he must show, which he has not, that all men will and 
must accept it there ; or he cannot prove from any 
preaching even there, the final holiness and happiness 
of all mankind. But the preaching was really done 
by Christ's spirit, or the Holy spirit, through Noah, 
else why designate the antediluvians only. 

His second argument was on the nature of God. He 
says "God is love ;" and the "therefore" he deduces fro m 
that is that all men will be finally saved. But that 
" therefore " is not in the premise. " God is love " 
now ; but men for all that are under condemnation 
and exposed to destruction. Till he can show that 
God will have some new attributes, or that his attri- 
butes will change, there is no argument he can build 
on the attributes of God that will do him any good. 
We have shown that " vengeance belongeth unto God," 
that he is a " consuming fire ;" that vengeance peculiarly 
belongs to him — for he says, " it is mine " — and if it 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING REJOINDER. 211 

belongs to him now, it will always belong to him, so that 
God will always be disposed to punish sin. My brother 
cannot escape from that position. 

We have seen, too, that he also rests an argu- 
ment on the holiness and justice of God. But we 
showed that no argument, with respect to man's con- 
dition in the future state, could be based on these at- 
tributes, that will not apply to man's condition in his 
present state. I wanted him to put his argument on 
the attributes into a syllogistic shape, and proposed to 
take his syllogism, and by the very same terms, ap- 
plied to the present state, disprove his argument with 
regard to the future state. But he did not do it ; and 
he did not do it because he did not dare to do it; for 
he knew that I would defeat his argument if he did. 
He knew that that argument as applied to this life would 
contradict our actual experience, and would thereby be 
disproved. Then we placed our trilemma before him, 
and compelled him to say that God does not design 
the salvation of all men now, though he commands 
men everywhere to repent now. ( Acts 17 : 30. ) Then 
we placed before him another trilemma, and we made 
him put the commands against the will of God. We 
made him argue that God commands one thing and 
wills another. He commands all men to obey Christ 
in this life, but he does not will that all men should 
obey Christ in this life ! and that is the kind of a 
difficulty into which his theory runs him. Then we 
reviewed his argument on the Fatherhood of God. 
He says God is the Father of all men, and he builds 
up an argument for the " final holiness and happiness 
of all men " from the fact that there exists this rela- 
tion. Now we admitted that in the sense of creation 
we are all the children of God ; but we affirmed that 
morally and spiritually some are recognized as the chil- 
dren of the Devil, and that they, as they possess the 
character of their father, must share his destiny. But 



212 FIKST PROPOSITION. 

he is to be punished eternally, and therefore they will 
share that punishment. In answer to his argument 
on the Will and Purpose of Christ, we drew the dis- 
tinction between his will of pleasure, or desire and his 
will of determination, or decree. We showed that his 
will of pleasure in reference to man w T as often defeated 
here, and might be in the future world — that the brother 
must prove, which he has not, that the will of God in 
respect to the salvation of all men is a will of de- 
termination. And we showed that all the promises of 
God with respect to spiritual good to man are condi- 
tional, that they are conditioned upon man's obedi- 
ence, and that if the condition is not met, the promis- 
ed good will not be granted. I ask, did he point out 
a single promise of this kind to man that he showed 
to be unconditioned ? I say, no ; not one. Pie assum- 
ed a great deal here about the promises; but he proved 
absolutely nothing. He has not met, and never can 
meet the argument relating to the conditionality of the 
Divine promises. 

Then there is his seventh argument predicated on 
Christ's mission and ministry, concerning which he says, 
Christ's mission was to save all mankind, and there- 
fore all men will be saved. We replied to that, that 
Christ's purpose of salvation was expressed in the 
Gospel Commission, and that it was his will to save 
men through the preaching of the gospel in this life. 
Christ says : 

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : Teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, 
lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." 
Matt 28 : 19-20. 

Now Christ has most evidently authorized the preach- 
ing of the gospel to all men in this life ; but he has 
given no commission to any man to preach the gospel 
to men in the other life. But my brother brought up 



ME. CARPENTER'S CLOSING REJOINDER. 213 

the gathering of all things in heaven and in earth in 
Christ. But we showed that that did not mean the gath- 
ering of all into Christ; but the gathering in one body or 
place of all who are in him ; and we showed also that 
men are to be brought into Christ here by the power 
of the gospel, by the preaching of the word — that the 
gospel is " the power of God unto salvation unto every 
one that believeth," and that " he that believeth not 
shall be condemned." And we have shown that when 
he shall come the second time without sin — i. e., a sin 
offering — unto salvation to all them that look for his 
appearing, he shall come " in flaming fire, taking ven- 
geance on them that know not God, and obey not the 
gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished 
with an everlasting destruction from the presence of God 
and from the glory of his power, when he shall come 
to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all 
them that believe in that day. (Heb. 9 : 28 ; 2 Thes. 
1: 8-10.) Which passages disprove plainly the theory 
of my brother. They do not sound like my brother's 
preaching; but they do sound like the Bible of God. 
I proceeded to show that we must accept Christ for 
ourselves, and trust in his blood, which washes from 
all past sins, in order to be saved. For only through 
faith and obedience do we accept him. And this is the 
sense in which we accept him, and appropriate to our- 
selves the blessings promised in Christ. And in meet- 
ing his eighth argument, on the Abrahamic promises, 
I showed that it was by faith and obedience Abraham 
was saved, and that it is by faith we become the heirs 
of the promise and the children of Abraham. And I 
showed that the promise is conditioned by our faith 
and obedience, and that it is not absolutely to " all 
nations," and all " the families of the earth," as secur- 
ing final salvation to all the individuals of all the 
nations and families of the earth ; and therefore the 
argument of the brother fails which he has presented 



214 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

based on the Abrahamic covenant. It is no broader 
than the gospel commission, which many reject. Then 
we have arguments 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, that all are to 
be reconciled to Christ, that Christ will draw all men 
to him, that all will come to Christ, and that all will 
submit to Christ — the brother is good at getting up 
numerous arguments with very slight difference be- 
tween them. Now these are all related to the Abraham- 
ic covenant ; and we have showed that the " alls " of that 
covenant; with a great many of his other "alls" intro- 
duced here, can only embrace a comparative and not 
an obsolute, or mathematical whole, and does not 
embrace all individuals, whether applied to the past 
or the future. And we took all these lines of argu- 
ment from him by disproving his application of the 
phrase "all men " etc., by numerous passages of scrip- 
tures, which we introduced and commented upon. I 
think you will see that he can never base an argument 
on these terms that will prove his proposition. He 
would have to show by other lines of argument that 
these terms were used in the absolute sense, when, 
applied to the salvation of men, or his argument 
falls to the ground. Then he came to Rom. 5 : 12-21, 
and in his thirteenth argument affirmed that all men 
shall be constituted righteous in Christ ; that as through 
the disobedience of one the many were made sinners, 
so through the obedience of one, Christ, the many should 
be made righteous ; and so he affirmed that this pas- 
sage teaches the doctrine of the final holiness and hap- 
piness of all men. But I showed that this passage is 
parallel with 1 Cor 15th ; that some did not receive 
and would not be benefitted by the offered grace, and 
therefore would not be saved. We have shown, too, 
that the " end " spoken of in 1 Cor. 15 : 24, when 
Christ shall have delivered up the kingdojn to God, 
even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, 
and all authority and power," and when all his ene- 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING REJOINDER. 215 

mies shall be put " under his feet," does not imply the 
reconciliation of all, as my brother argues, but the 
subjection of all — that there is a great difference be- 
tween the reconciliation of all and the subjection of 
all. But he does not say that they are to be all recon- 
ciled, but all subdued. If it had been said that he 
should gather them to his bosom, it would have been 
more to the brother's purpose ; but he is going to place 
them under his feet, as a conqueror places his feet on 
the necks of his enemies . 1 John 3: 8; "For this 
purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might 
destroy the works of the devil," is in the same line. 
Paul says here, " For he must reign till he hath put 
all enemies under his feet." They are not to be recon- 
ciled, but trodden under his feet [the speaker illustrating 
the action indicated] That looks like Paul's doctrine 
exactly ; but not like the doctrine my brother is advo- 
cating here. 

Then he referred to the resurrection, and all that. 
But he will make nothing for his proposition out 
of that. Finally, we have Romans 8th introduc- 
ed, his last, his Gibraltar ! But we have just shown 
you that we have captured that Gibraltar lawfully, 
and so we will pass that at this time. 

Passing from the affirmant's arguments, I will bring 
before you my rebutting arguments. You remember 
I pressed upon him the word "final" and said that if 
he would prove that the state of the wicked after death, 
is one of holiness and happiness, as he argues it will 
be, and is their final state, beyond which there is noth- 
ing different — then I would yield the argument, and 
let everything else go. He promised to do it ; but he 
only did it in the style he attempted this afternoon ; 
and I think you will say that he has not done it at all. 
I asked him to prove that all men, not might, but would 
obey the gospel in the next world and thus be saved. 
But he did not do it. He has gone upon sheer assump- 



216 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

tion of the very thing in debate. Then I called for 
the commission to preach the gospel over there ; but 
he has not produced that, and he has not showed that 
if men should obey the go-pel over there and be saved, 
that they could not again fall into sin as they fell into 
sin here, and so be finally lost I asked him for the 
line of his argument to prove the "final" salvation of 
anybody ; whether he would prove it by the words 
everlasting, eternal, aidnios, olam, or what word 
or argument he would usa to prove it; and he finally 
brings in the word " incorruptible," and says that is the 
word. He might as well have brought in any other 
word ; for he introduces a word that is applied, as we 
have shown, by the apostle, to the future state of the 
righteous, and not to the future state of all men, and is 
not a word of duration at all, but of character. We 
also wanted to know where these sinful spirits are to 
be kept in order to be " reformed." For he admits 
that they are to be punished beyond death, and they 
are to reform after death, and he must find some place 
where they are to be in the next state until this punish- 
ment ends and this reformation occurs. Well, he thinks 
they are in those upper regions somewhere, floating 
through the air perhaps — in some spiritual medium 
perhaps, and he has them passing up through succes- 
sive spiritualistic " spheres" in the future state. Well, 
so much for that ; but where does he find the proof of 
it in the Bible ? We then argued that the orthodox 
are upon safe ground, whatever may be the case with 
our Universalist friends. That to reject Universalism, 
on their own showing, cannot injure us, either for time 
or eternity. That if they shall be saved we will ; and 
that they must fin*d some justification for preaching 
their doctrine ; that they must show that it does more 
for men than our preaching does, or it would be use- 
less and unnecessary, and we argued that Universal- 
ism has been preached long enough to have been tested; 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING REJOINDER. 217 

and that by their own showing, the doctrine was not 
doing anything for men that was not being done by 
the preaching of the orthodox faith. When he answer- 
ed that this objection lay with equal force against my 
teaching, I replied that our plea is one that the world 
realy needs for good. But he assumed that the preach- 
ing of Universalism has modified the orthodox doc- 
trine ; but he did not prove it, and therefore I shall 
pass it by. But we showed that our Universalist 
friends have modified their views, that modern Uni- 
versalism differs from the Universalism of Hosea Bal- 
lou and John Murray, that they now admit future, 
punishment for an indefinite period, and, therefore, 
either their former or their present teaching, or both, 
must be false. And we showed that if we are right 
and the brother is wrong, he is running a terrible hazard 
in preaching his doctrine, and inducing men to put off 
repentance until after death. We then showed that in 
the admission of future punishment, on their own prin- 
ciple, there would be future infinite punishment We 
brought up the supposed cases of A. and B. who enter- 
ed eternity with one hundred degrees of moral difference 
between them, that these characters were diverging 
when they left the world, and the presumption was 
that they would continue to diverge; and at least this 
difference would exist between them endlessly; and in 
the case of B., it being the result of his own action, it 
would be a "punishment;" and, therefore, there would 
be " endless punishment/' We showed also that, by 
this very line of argument, it is established that infin- 
ite effects are attached to finite causes. This argument 
my brother has not refuted, and I do not believe any 
Universalist can possibly refute it. Thus I showed 
that men would suffer endlessly there for their actions 
here, according to their own showing, and upon the 
admission of moral agency and punishment in the fu- 
ture world. I also demurred against his doctrine from 



218 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

the fact that the doctrine of future endless punishment 
has come down, in the tradition of all nations, along 
with those original ideas of the existence of God, Cre- 
ation, the Fall of Man, the Deluge, etc.,— ideas which 
have come from a common source, and which are held 
in common by Pagans, Jews, Mohammedans and 
Christians, and which must be accepted as true, unless 
proved to be false. We next showed, by arguments 
f*om Scripture, that the philosophy of this life contra- 
dicts Universalism ; that the circumstances of our own 
earthly probation, and the teaching of the Bible are in 
agreement in representing us as preparing in this 
world for an eternal destiny. We showed again that 
the Scriptures are irreconcilable with the idea of a 
post-mortem gospel obedience. And we showed that 
sinners would not be under favorable circumstances 
there for reformation j that they would be in bad 
company, with the Devil and his angels, that they will 
be banished from Christ, and cannot come to him ; and 
that there are some who become so that even here it is 
impossible to renew them unto repentance. And this 
argument, I believe, notwithstanding all my brother's 
efforts, remains unshaken. W T e then argued that the 
doctrine of Universalism stultifies the atonement. 
And you noticed how lightly my brother touched on 
that. We showed under this head that Universalism 
denies the doctrine of pardon, that there is neither 
grace nor pardon in it — that it teaches that men suf- 
fer the whole penalty of their sins; and that if there is 
any Saviour, it is not Christ, but suffering, that saves 
men. But we showed that men are to be saved through 
Christ, through the blood of Christ, and that there is 
no redemption or salvation out of Christ. And thus 
we. have shown, by argument upon agument, by Scrip- 
ture proof after Scripture proof, that my brother has 
no ground on which to stand ; that there is no founda- 
tion in the Bible for his theory ; and I believe you will 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING REJOINDER. 219 

agree that we have disproved his proposition that 
the Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of 
all mankind. In conclusion, my friends, I would say, 
obey Christ here, and all will be well with you 
hereafter. [Time expired.] 



Endless Punishment. 



SECOND PROPOSITION: 



THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THOSE WHO DIE IN WILLFUL DISOBEDI- 
ENCE TO THE GOSPEL WILL SUFFER ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST SPEECH. 

Brethren Moderators : — In assuming the affirm- 
ative upon the second proposition in this discussion, I 
do not propose to waste time in useless prelimina- 
ries. A great English debater once said: " Gen- 
tlemen, define your terms. " This I now propose 
to do briefly, and also to indicate the real point at is- 
sue in this debate. 

The disputants are agreed in accepting the Bible as 
the source from which proof is to be drawn. We fur- 
ther agree that the wicked will be punished after 
death for their sins in this life, and that those who 
" die in Christ " will be holy and happy — that infants 
are reckoned in this class, making in all a considera- 
ble majority of the race. Concerning the heathen and 
those pious, but in great error, my proposition neither 
affirms nor denies. The proposition relates onty to a 
specified class, those who " die in willful disobedience to 
the gospel" — who, against all light and knowledge, all 
beseechings and invitations, will not have the man 
220 



ME. CARPENTER'S FIRST SPEECH. 221 

Christ Jesus to reign over them. Both the proposition 
and ray opponent concede that there are such charac- 
ters. Ihese alone are the legitimate subjects of this 
discussion, and we hope the arguments will be confined 
strictly to these limits ; for all else is foreign to the 
question. By a " disobedience to the gospel," we 
mean, of course, the want of a hearty acceptance of 
Christ as the Saviour of men. By " endless " we mean, 
as Webster defines it, " without end, interminable" hav- 
ing for its synonyms, " eternal," " everlasting" " infi- 
nite." By " punishment" we mean legal penalty for the 
infraction of law, including a banishment from God's 
peaceful presence, and often expressed in the Scriptures 
by such terms as u fire" " burning," etc. 

I presume that my opponent will agree, substantial- 
ly, with what I have said ; and that he himself would 
be willing to affirm this proposition after striking out 
the word " endless" This, then, is the pivotal word 
upon which the debate turns, and we do not desire to 
evade it, as our opponent did his pivotal word " final." 

" Endless " occurs in our common version but twice : 
once in 1 Tim. 1 : 4, where the apostle, speaking of the 
Jewish tables of descent, calls them " endless genealogies " 
Here it is certainly used in an accommodated sense, as 
these genealogies were not absolutely infinite. If, then, 
I should treat this word of my proposition as the Uni- 
versalists treat the words " eternal" " everlasting" u for- 
ever" u aidnios" " olam," etc., my opponent and I would 
be together, and there could be no dispute. But this is 
an unfair and illegitimate use of words, which, though 
they are all used with varied shades of meaning, and in 
accommodated senses, still they have their proper and 
radical meanings. I propose, therefore, to treat this 
word with fairness, and only ask that Universalists 
will do the same by its synonyms, " eternal," " everlast- 
ing " etc.; and by their Hebrew and Greek representa- 
tives, olam, aidnios, etc. 



222 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

The other occurrence of " endless " is in Heb. 7 : 16 : 
(zods ahatalutou) "after the power of an endless life." 
(Rendered by Wilson, imperishable.) For anything 
my brother proved upon his affirmative concerning the 
future life of any one, this too might be taken in a lim- 
ited sense. But we accept it in its fullest meaning here. 

" But," says our opponent, " endless is nowhere in the 
Scripture applied to the punishment of the wicked." 
True, but stronger terms than endless are, and this we 
propose to prove. 

Crabbe, in his English Synonyms, the highest author- 
ity in the English language, says : (p. 270.) " The eter- 
nal is set above time ; the endless lies within time; it is, 
therefore, by a strong figure that we apply eternal to 
anything sublunary ; although endless may be applied to 
that which is heavenly. That is properly eternal which 
has neither beginning nor end ; that is endless which has 
a beginning, but no end. God, therefore, is an eternal, 
but not an endless being. 

" ' Distance immense between the powers that shine 
Above, eternal, deathless, and divine, 
And mortal man.' — Pope. 

"There is an eternal state of happiness or misery 
which awaits all men, according to their deeds in this 
life. 

" ' The faithful Mydon, as he turned from fight 
His flying coursers, sunk to endless night.' — Pope. 

" That which is endless has no cessation ; that which 
is everlasting, has neither interruption nor cessation. The 
endless may be said of existing things ; the everlasting 
naturally extends itself into futurity. Hence we speak 
of endless disputes, an endless warfare, an everlasting me- 
morial, an everlasting Grown of glory. 

" ' Back from the car he tumbled to the ground, 
And everlasting shades his eyes surround.' — Pope. 

Thus speaks Crabbe. We will next hear Webster. 
After giving definitions and' synonyms of the word " ev- 



MR. carpenter's FIRST SPEECH. 223 

erlasting," corresponding with those already quoted from 
Crabbe, only stronger, if possible, he says : " Everlast- 
ing is sometimes used in our version of the Scriptures 
in the sense of eternal; as, i From everlasting to ever- 
lasting thou art God.' Ps. 90: 2: but in modern 
usage, everlasting is confined to the future. 

" ' "Whether we shall meet again I know not, 
Therefore our everlasting farewell take, 
Forever and forever farewell.' — Shakespeare." 

Webster also makes the adverb " forever " synony- 
mous with eternally, endlessly, everlastingly, etc. (See 
" forever. 7 ') 

Worcester, and all other standard authorities known 
to me, agree with Crabbe and Webster in the use of these 
terms. 

We have been thus particular upon the urns loquendi 
of the words endless, everlasting, eternal, forever, etc., be- 
cause Universalists are in the habit of treating eternal, 
endless, forever, etc., as mere temporaries, while they at- 
tribute an infinite duration as expressed by the word 
endless. But their assumptions are absolutely false. 
Endless is the very weakest of all these terms, as we 
have fully shown by the highest authorities in the lan- 
guage. When, therefore, we shall find that the Scrip- 
tures apply eternal, everlasting, forever, etc., to the pun- 
ishment of the wicked after death, we shall have found 
even more than our proposition demands. We ask that 
this fact be remembered in all controversies with Uni- 
versalists, who are fond of having this word in our 
propositions, simply because it does not happen to be 
applied to the punishment of the wicked. But it would 
have been easier for them to meet us if it had been sub- 
stituted for the stronger terms we have named — the 
strongest words of duration in« the language. That is 
to say, had our common version rendered aionios, and 
that class of words, by endless, and had it omitted, 
when speaking of the punishment of the wicked, the 



224 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

words eternal, everlasting, etc., Universalists would have 
thrust into our proposition the words everlasting, eternal, 
etc., as stronger than endless, and would have more 
easily met our position on the argument based upon the 
sense of these words. But that these terms are some- 
times used in a figurative, appropriated, or accommo- 
dated sense, we frankly concede; but does this argue 
that they have no specific meaning ? that we have no 
words that express infinite duration? To argue thus 
would be absurd. 

Home, in his Introduction, says : " The received sig- 
nification of a word is to be retained, unless weighty 
and necessary reasons require that it should be aban- 
doned or neglected." We have seen what the received 
meanings of these terms are. If my opponent shall 
insist on giving them an unusual and special sense, he 
must show that a necessity for such meaning exists in 
the particular passage. 

But Home lays down another important rule. u Of 
any particular passage, the most simple sense, or that 
which most readily suggests itself to an attentive read- 
er, possessing competent knowledge, is, in all proba- 
bility, the genuine sense, or meaning." 

We ask that these rules be remembered and appli- 
ed as we introduce Scriptures bearing upon the propo- 
sition in hand. We are willing to discuss the meaning 
of these terms in English, or their equivalents in 
Greek ; but as we are discussing before an English 
reading audience, and have in the main, good transla- 
tions, English is preferable. 

I will 'now introduce my first formal argument in 
support of my proposition : 

I. The Scriptural use of eternal, everlast- 
ing, FOREVER, WHEN APPLIED TO THE FUTURE CON- 
DITION OF THE WICKED. 

I quote Matt. 25 : 31-46. 

" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST SPEECH. 225 

angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : 
And before him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall separate 
them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats 
on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for 
you from the foundation of the world : For I was an hungered, and 
ye gave me meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink : I was a 
stranger, arid ye took me in : Naked, and ye clothed me : I was 
sick, and ye visited me : I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee 
an hungered, and fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink ? When 
saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed 
thee ? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee ? 
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto 
you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my 
brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them 
on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, 
prepared for the devil and his angels : for I was an hungered, and ye 
gave me no meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink : I was 
a stranger, and ye took me not in : naked, and ye clothed me not : 
sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also an- 
swer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or 
a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto 
thee ? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to 
me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the 
righteous into life eternal." 

After what we have already said regarding the words 
everlasting and eternal, we need do little more than 
read this Scripture, unless our opponent shall attempt 
to show that they are here used in an accommodated 
sense. And, as we have said, it will not be sufficient 
for him to show that they are sometimes so used. But 
until he proves a special and limited sense to the terms 
as used in this Scripture, the passage proves my propo- 
sition under Horne's rules which we read, and the cor- 
rectness of which, we presume, will not be questioned. 

We will not anticipate our opponent ; but when he 
shall attempt to show that these w T ords are here used 
in a limited and abridged sense, we will be ready with 
our reply. Unless he can thus rescue it, the passage 
consigns the wicked to " everlasting punishment " 
15 



226 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

— to " everlasting fire." And remember that we have 
proven that everlasting is even a stronger word than 
endless. 

The word " everlasting " occurs about ninety times 
in the common version. In fully half of these in- 
stances, it relates to God, his attributes, and the life he 
gives to the righteous. In such cases it indisputably 
signifies without end. Twice, by strong figure of 
hyperbole, it is applied to hills, or mountains. ( Gen. 
49 : 26 ; Hab. 3 : 6.) Twice to Israel's possessions : 
(Gen. 17 : 8; 48: 4.) And several times to God's cove- 
nants, the Jewish priesthood, etc. In these instances, 
though their actual possession, priesthood, and covenant 
relation, might terminate; yet as none were to sup- 
plant them in a proper sense in relation to the things 
promised, the strong language, " everlasting," would 
be quite appropriate. In some eight or ten instances 
the word is clearly applied to the punishment of the 
wicked. The facts we have stated show clearly the 
meaning of the term as understood by our translators. 
u Eternal " occurs some forty-six times, as we count in 
the Concordance. About forty of these occurrences 
refer to God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the attributes of 
God, and the life of the Saints, called "eternal life." 
Once (Heb, 6 : 2,) we have " eternal judgment" ; once 
(Jude 7,) " suffering the vengeance of eternal fire " ; 
once (Mark 3 : 29,) "eternal damnation." 

" Forever " occurs more frequently, and perhaps with 
a little broader range of meanings ; but substantially 
agreeing with its two synonyms, everlasting and eternal. 

I will now read 2 Thes. 1 : 4-10 : ■ 

"So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of^ God, for 
your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations 
that ye endure : which is a manifest token of the righteous judg- 
ment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of 
God, for which ye also suffer : seeing it is a righteous thing with 
God to recompense tribulation to them tnat trouble you : and to 
you, who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIRST SPEECH. 227 

revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking 
vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel 
of our Lord Jesus Christ : who shall be punished with everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power : when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be 
admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you 
was believed) in that day. Wherefore also we pray always for you, 
that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all 
the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power* 
that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and 
ye in him, according to the grace of our God, and the Lord Jesus 
Christ." 

Now here you will observe that the Thessalonians 
were already in the earthly kingdom, the Church of 
Christ, but they are exhorted to be worthy of the ever- 
lasting kingdom, or heavenly reign, of which Peter 
speaks (2 Peter 1:11) : 

" For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into 
the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 

This "everlasting kingdom" was to be received by 
them when Christ should be "revealed from heaven with 
his mighty angels, in naming fire," when he should 
come to be ". glorified in his saints, and to be admired in 
all them that believe," and when all those " that know 
not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord 
Jesus Christ," shall " be punished with everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from 
the glory of his power." Upon the " coming" and the 
" everlasting " we have already spoken, and may have 
occasion to speak again. A word as to the term here 
rendered " destruction" olethros (accusative olethron,) 
from ollumi, to destroy ; hence ruin, perdition, destruc-* 
Hon, misery. Hence we have everlasting ruin, everlasting 
perdition, or everlasting destruction" My opponent can 
take which phrase suits him best here. 

Now that the apostle could not refer to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem is doubly evident when we re- 
member that Thessalonica was a Gentile city, away over 
in Europe, more than a thousand miles from Jerusalem. 



228 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

Not only so, but the church there was composed prima- 
rily of Gentiles and not of Jews, as is apparent from the 
following Scriptures, Acts 17:4-15, also 1 Thes. 2:14: 

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which 
in Judea are in Christ Jesus : for ye also have suffered like things of 
your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews." 

Now notice they had suffered of their own countrymen, 
the Gentiles, as the churches in Judea had of the Jews. 
Jerusalem may make a very good pack-horse, or scape- 
goat, for Universalists, but they can never make this 
passage in Thessalonians stick to that beast ! What 
special interest had these Gentiles, away over there in 
Europe, in the destruction of Jerusalem ? Or how were 
they troubled by the Jews ? 

In Romans 16:26, we read of " the commandment of 
the everlasting (aidnios) God ; " in Heb. 9:14, of the 
" eternal (aidnion) Spirit ; " in 1 Peter 5:10, of " eternal 
(aidnion) glory," etc. But seven times does the Bible 
apply this same term to the fate of the wicked; and, there- 
fore, so sure as God, the Holy Spirit, and the life of the 
saints are endless, so sure the punishment of the wicked 
will be also endless. 

Dr. Adam Clarke (on Matt. 25:46) says : " I have 
seen the best things that have been written in favor of 
the final redemption of damned spirits, but I never saw 
an answer to an argument against that doctrine, drawn 
from this verse, but what sound learning and criticism 
should be ashamed to acknowledge. The original word, 
axon, is certainly to be taken here in its proper, gram- 
'matical sense, continued being; aie and on, never- 
ending." Pickering, Donnegan, Robinson, all give 
''endless" "duration" as significations of the word, and 
Greenfield, Bullions, and others, give eternity as one of 
its meanings. Eternity, or endlessness is, therefore, in 
the sense of the noun, and adheres also to the adjective, 
aidnios. , 
t I will now read : 



229 

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which 
standeth for the children of thy people : and there shall be a time 
of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that 
same time : and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every 
one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them 
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting 
lif, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that 
beewise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament : and they 
that turn many to righteousness, as the stars forever and ever. But 
thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the 
time of the end : many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be 
increased." Dan. 12:1-4. 

In introducing this passage, I am not ignorant of the 
fact that commentators have not been wholly agreed 
upon its proper interpretation, and that Universalists, 
here as elsewhere, have concluded that as they don't 
know exactly what else to do with it, it must refer to 
Jerusalem that was. But whatever disagreement there 
may be with regard to the minutia, there is very gen- 
eral, though not universal agreement among critics and 
expositors, that it refers to the yet future. And we place 
ourselves on the side of the large majority of the most 
reputable expositors and give our reasons briefly. 

The prophet, in the previous chapter, had epitomized 
the history of the fall of the Persian Empire, by Alex- 
ander the Great, the wars between Syria and Egypt, un- 
der Ptolemy Philometer, of the latter, and Antiochus 
Epiphanes, of the former; referring also to the Jews, 
Romans, and probably to the Mohammedans, etc. At the 
beginning of the 12th chapter he passes to the resurrec- 
tion and judgment. Three important points are re- 
vealed in the passage read. 1. The physical, or literal 
resurrection. 2. A subsequent punishment. 3. That 
that punishment shall be everlasting. 

The literal resurrection is proven by the expression 
" sleep in the dust of the earth." " Dust " may be used 
figuratively ; so may " earth ; " but the expression 
" dust of the earth " is, in the Bible, always literal. 
Mark this. It is the same here as in Gen. 2:7, ■" God 



230 SFCOND PROPOSITION. 

formed man out of the dust of the ground." The He- 
brew of both (a clem ath aphas) is just the same." Awake" 
signifies to raise. (See Job 14:12; Ps. 17:15.) 

We are aware that some otherwise respectable authors 
have hastily concluded that the doctrines of the resur- 
rection, of the judgment, and future rewards and pun- 
ishments are not distinctly taught in the Old Testament. 
xV few passages will show the error regarding the resur- 
rection, upon which the other points hinge. This doc- 
trine is clearly taught in Isaiah 26:14 : 

"They are dead, they shall not live ; they are deceased, they shall 
not rise : therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made 
all their memory to perish." 

Also in Ezek. 37:13 : 

" And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened 
your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves." 

And still more explicitly in the following Scriptures. 

Heb. 11:35: 

"Women received their dead raised to life again : and others were 
tortured, not accepting deliverance ; that they might obtain a better 
resurrection." 

Acts 2:31 : 

"He" (David) " seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of 
Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see cor- 
ruption." 

Other Scriptures prove conclusively that the ancient, 
or Old Testament worthies did believe the doctrine of the 
resurrection, and its consequences — " better resurrec- 
tion," which implies a worse — a raising to " everlasting 
contempt." These will suffice. 

Again, this passage in Daniel shows that punishment 
attaches to the resurrection of the wicked. And we 
now proceed to show that this punishment is to be eter- 
nal, or eudless. The Hebrew, olam, signifies to hide or 
conceal; and as the infinite future is hidden to us, this 
word is used to represent that state. Like the Greek 
aidn, it may sometimes be used in an accommodated 
sense ; but the sense is usually infinite, as in Gen. 21:33, 



23i 

" Everlasting God ; " Deut. 33:27, "Eternal God." Also 
Ps. 24:7 and Dan. 4:3. Even when limited it always 
exhausts the duration of that to which it refers. But 
the expression in Dan. 12:3, "forever and ever" (Heb. 
leolam vaed) fixes the eternity of this passage beyond 
controversy, since ofam, in the duplicated form leolam, 
here used, is never used in a limited sense. Let my 
opponent meet this if he can. 

Nor can Dan. 12th be made parallel with Matt. 24th. 
The " Pro and Con " (Universalist) says that Matt. 24th 
refers to a national, not individual destruction, but that 
of the Jewish Commonwealth. (See p. 158.) This we 
concede. But in Daniel it is individual — destruction to 
the " many" But it may be objected that making Daniel 
and Matthew refer to separate events would make two 
" Nor ever shall be." This is not true, as the one refers 
to a national, the other to individual calamity — hence 
do not conflict. But what have Universalists to do with 
" 'ever f " Does it mean a long time ? Then, after a 
long time — a limited duration — there might be another 
tribulation ! How do our Universalist friends like their 
own logic ? [Time expired.] 

ME. HUGHES' FIEST EEJOINDEE. 

Messes. Moderators : — The question, as to wheth- 
er a portion of our race shall suffer endless punishment, 
is one of tremendous and awful import. It is well that 
we try to get a realizing sense of its transcendent fear- 
fulness as fully as may be in the outset of its discussion. 

It being true, sin, as a foul blot on God's fair Uni- 
verse, is to be forever. Then goodness is not to be tri- 
umphant, but is to divide its supremacy with evil ; and 
sin is to be a victor over more than one half of human 
kind ! Then God will be frustrated in his righteous in- 
tention of saving the entire race of man ! Christ's mis- 
sion to save the world in part abortive ! And gospel 



232 SECOND PEC-POSITION. 

truth for the redemption of man a failure in part ! And 
falsehood victorious in a degree ! Then the desire of 
angels, who rejoice over one repenting sinner, never sat- 
isfied ! The prayers of the good and true of all ages 
and climes never answered ! All this combining to make 
endless sinning and suffering a calamity in magnitude 
inconceivable ! 

Endless punishment being true, then, there will be 
an eternal separation of friends ; a sundering of the ten- 
derest and most sacred ties ; a disruption of families ; a 
severing of the golden links of affection never to be gath- 
ered again ! 

To assert its truth, is virtually to charge God with 
the crime of allowing sin to come into the world, with 
the full knowledge that if once in existence, he never 
could or would blot it out or expurge it. With the full 
knowledge too of the fearful havoc it would make; and 
that with its eternal existence, it would drag millions 
upon millions of those whom he gave existence, down 
deeper and deeper into hell forever ! All of this result- 
ing in not only a calamity tran seen dent ly direful in the 
future world, but also in making sad and broken hearts 
here, and paralyzing some of the brightest intellects in 
the world. 

" Give evil but an end — and all is clear ! 

Make it eternal — all things are obscured ! 

And all that we have thought, felt, wept, endured, 

Worthless. We feel that ev'n if our own tears 

Were wiped away forever, no true cheer 

Could to our yearning bosoms be secured 

While we believed that sorrow clung uncured 

To any being we on earth held dear. 

Oh, much doth life the sweet solution need 

Of all made blest in far futurity. 

Heaven needs it too." 

Dr. Spring says, in reference to the hopeless con- 
demnation of the wicked to hell : " It puts in requisition 
all our confidence in God to justify this proceedure of 
his government." 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST REJOINDER. 233 

Dr. Charming says : "We can endure any errors but 
those which subvert or unsettle the conviction of God's 
paternal goodness. Urge not upon us a system which 
makes existence a curse, and wraps the universe in 
gloom." 

Dr. Albert Barnes says : " I have read, to some ex- 
tent, what wise and good men have written. I have 
looked at their theories and explanations. I have en- 
deavored to weigh their arguments — for my whole soul 
pants for light and relief on these questions. But I get 
neither ; and in the distress and anguish of my own spir- 
it, I confess that I see no light whatever. I see not one 
ray to disclose to me the reason why sin came into the 
world ; why the earth is strewed with the dying and the 
dead, and why man must suffer to all eternity. I have 
never seen a particle of light thrown on these subjects, 
that has given a moment's ease to my tortured mind, nor 
have I an explanation to offer, or a thought to suggest, 
which would be of relief to you. I trust that other men 
— as they profess to do — understand this better than I 
do, and that they have not the anguish of spirit which I 
have ; but I confess, when I look on a world of sinners 
and sufferers ; upon death beds and graveyards ; upon 
the world of woe, filled with hosts to suffer forever ; 
when I see my friends, my parents, my family, my peo- 
ple, my fellow citizens — when I look upon a whole race, 
all involved in this sin and danger, and when I see the 
great mass of them wholly unconcerned, and when I feel 
that God can only save them, and yet he does not do it, 
I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, DARK to my 
soul, and I can not disguise it." Dr. A. Barnes' Practi- 
cal Sermons, p. 125. 

Again, Prof. Stuart, in Biblical Repository, says : 

" The social sympathies, too, of some men are deeply concerned 
with the formation of their religious opinions. They have lost a 
near and dear friend by death ; one who never made any profession 
of religion, or gave good reason to suppose that his mind was partic- 
ularly occupied with it. What shall they think of his case ? Can 



234 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

they believe that one so dear to them has become eternally wretch- 
ed, «tn outcast forever from God? Can they endure the thought that 
they are never to see or associate with him more ? Can heaven be a 
place of happiness for them, while they are conscious that a hus- 
band, or a wife, a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister, is plunged 
into a lake of fire, from which there is no escape? It is impossible, 
they aver, to overcome such sympathies as these. It would be un- 
natural and even monstrous to suppress them. 

They are, therefore, as they view the case, constrained to doubt 
whether the misery of a future world can be endless ! If there be 
any whose breasts are strangers to such difficulties as these, they are 
to be congratulated on having made attainments beyond the reach 
of humanity in the present world ; or else to be pitied for ignorance, 
or the want of a sympathy which seems to be among the first ele- 
ments of our social nature. With the great mass of thinking Christ- 
ians, I am sure such thoughts as these must, unhappily for them, be 
acquaintances too familiar. That they agitate our breasts as storms do 
the mighty deep, will be testified by every man of tender heart, and 
who has a deep concern in the present and future welfare of those 
whom he loves." 

Dr. D wight, the well known theological writer, makes 
the following confession : " There are, I know, persons 
who speak of future punishment with an air of cool self- 
complacency, as being in their view, easy of investiga- 
tion and free from embarassment. I am inclined, per- 
haps uncharitably, to give them little credit for candor, 
cleverness of intellect, or soundness of character; and 
greatly doubt whether it has been investigated by 
them." 

Itis the endlessness of punishment, the eternal perpet- 
uation of sin and misery, that casts this lurid shade ; 
that wraps the government of God in this impenetrable 
gloom, and makes the fate of a very great portion of the 
human family a doom so fearful as to be beyond the 
conception of the mightiest intellect. Endless punish- 
ment ! Have you any conception of the tremendous 
import of those fearful Avords ? 

My opponent will not deny that punishment means 
pain, misery. Make that misery ever so slight, and per- 
petuate it to eternity, and you make it indescribably 
miserable. It may be that his hell is a state of banish- 



ME. hughes' fiest eejoindee. 235 

ment, a sort Van Dieman's Land, but he will not call it 
a pleasure, but a positive suffering. Add to it the idea 
of duration without end, and there is no intellect so 
mighty as to conceive its awfulness ; no tongue so elo- 
quent as to describe its severity. It is impossible to 
caricature or exaggerate it. 

Misery of but short duration is hard to bear ; to be a 
life sufferer is fearful. But to suffer for a life time would 
shrink to almost nothing in comparison to suffering for a 
million of years. But what is a million of years in pain, 
beside an eternity of suffering ? Absolutely nothing ! 
But give breadth to your conception ; grasp, if pos- 
sible, the idea of a million of years of time, multiply that 
by a million, and that by the duration expressed by the 
figures that would circle the earth, or the figures that 
would run the circuit of the orbit of Uranus, and con- 
ceive, if possible, all these mighty cycles of time, and ask 
yourself what relation has all that time to eternity. An- 
swer must be, that suffering all the slow moving years of 
that mighty duration the most excruciating agony that 
infinite ingenuity and infinite malevolence could devise, 
would be absolutely nothing in comparison to endless 
misery, though it be but in small degree. It is the idea 
of eternity, eteenity ! that makes the punishment so out 
of proportion ; magnifies its intensity ; sharpens its cru- 
elty ; violates its justice ; robs God of his mercy ; shrouds 
the very face of Deity in clouds of darkness ; and makes 
it the most truly appalling and accursed thing ever in- 
vented by heathen superstition, or believed in by 
Christian credulity. " Among all the haggard supersti- 
tions of earth, Comparative Theology can furnish no 
more truly diabolical untruth." 

Let not my opponent attempt to smooth the wrinkled 
visage and grizzled front of this monster, Endless Woe, 
to make it acceptable to his hearers. 

The great probabilities are against this doctrine. It 
is not a doctrine that strikes the mind as reasonable and 



236 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

probable, but to tlie contrary. The opposite doctrine, 
the final salvation of all men, is in complete accord with 
the will of God, the mission of Christ, the triumph of 
God's government, the desjre of angels, and the prayers 
of all good men. But the doctrine of endless misery is 
true only in an eternal frustration of God's will, the fail- 
ure of Christ's mission, the defeat of God's government,, 
and the disappointment of the desire of angels, and the 
prayers of the good of earth. The one is a consumma- 
tion most devoutly to be wished for ; the other a calam- 
ity the most appalling conceivable. 

Such is the nature of this doctrine that a bare state- 
ment of it in all its hideous deformity is enough to throw 
doubt and distrust upon such a result of God's govern- 
ment. The clearest and most 'positive evidence only should 
convince of its truth. 

Says Dr. Thomas Dick : 

"Whatever may be the truth as to this point, we are sure that 
'the Judge of all the earth must do right'' When I consider the 
boundless nature of eternity, and when I consider the limited dura- 
tion of man, I can scarcely bring myself to believe that the sins of a 
few fleeting years are to be punished throughout a duration that has 
no end, more especially when it is declared, more than a score of 
times, that ' The mercy of the Lord endureth forever,' and that 
'His tender mercies are over all his works.' If his mercy endures 
forever, it appears scarcely consistent with the idea that punishment 
will be inflicted throughout unlimited duration." 

Rev. John Foster says : " I acknowledge myself 
not convinced of the orthodox doctrine, endless punish- 
ment! Hopeless misery through a duration to which 
the most enormous terms of time will be absolutely noth- 
ing ! I acknowledge my inability (I would say it rev- 
erently) to admit this belief, together with a belief in 
the Divine Goodness — the belief that God is love, that 
his tender mercies are over all his works." 

Leigh Hunt says : " If an angel were to tell us to be- 
lieve in endless punishment, I would not do it, for it 
would better become me to believe the angel a delusion, 
than God monstrous; and we make him monstrous 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST REJOINDER. 237 

when we make him the author t>f eternal punishment." 

My opponent believes in the resurrection of the natu- 
ral body, but that in the resurrection it becomes incor- 
ruptible, immortal. This would indicate that he does 
not believe in any punishment of the body. For if it 
becomes immortal, incorruptible, then no stripes can tor- 
ture it, no fire burn it. His hell in the future must be 
wholly spiritual, moral. But will he tell us how man 
can suffer morally, unless there be good enough in him 
to reprove the evil ? For if man becomes totally de- 
praved in the future state, and his nature becomes wholly 
evil, will he tell us how he can be punished morally ? or 
punished at all without a positive infliction from God? 
Will God then be a tormenter ? If man, then, in the 
world of punishment becomes entirely evil, will not that 
then be his natural state or atmosphere, and he be happy 
in it ? But if the moral nature becomes extinct, the im- 
age of God in man annihilated, will my brother be so 
kind as to tell me what then he predicates man's immor- 
tality on ? 

But if man's moral nature has not become extinct, and 
there is good in man, and so be capable of being pun- 
ished, will not that good struggle for the mastery, and so 
there be a possibility of man's being saved ? And does 
not this make even the punishment of hell for the sup- 
pression of evil, and for the good of the offender ? In 
such a case will God hinder man's salvation ? Will not 
God love the good in man, even in hell, and attract his 
own image ? If there still will be good in man, will not 
that goodness have God's help, and so man be saved ? 

But if the good in man is too weak to overcome the 
evil in him, and the evil gains the mastery, will not the 
good in man die, and his moral nature become extinct, 
and so he cease to suffer morally ? and endless misery be 
untrue in either case ? 

But if man's moral nature dies, is not annihilation the 
result, and so endless punishment impossible ? 



238 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

The emotions of the mind cannot be continued end- 
lessly without some continually exciting cause. The 
endless misery of man, then, morally, is impossible with- 
out a continually exciting cause. Will God supply that 
cause ? Will he work an eternal miracle of wrath and 
cruelty ? Could we utter a worse slander on his good- 
ness and mercy that endureth forever ? 

My brother's proposition literally construed makes 
endless punishment the consequence of dying in willful 
disobedience to the gospel. Not because they lived in 
willful disobedience ; for repentance saves from all con- 
sequences of living wrongly at any time before death. 
Does this fairly represent his views? Will he answer 
now squarely as to whether he holds to endless punish- 
ment as a just reward for the sins of this life ? or does he 
hold it on the ground of endless punishment for endless 
sinning ? 

I will now briefly examine the argument of my oppo- 
nent. He says : " We both hold to the fact of punish- 
ment after death for the sins of. this life." I would say 
on that point, that I believe that the present world is a 
world of retribution; that men are being punished here 
for their sins, but just as they lack merited punishment 
here, it runs over into the future state. I believe most 
firmly, too, that punishment here and hereafter is not vin- 
dictive and retaliatory, but just and fatherly, with a view 
to induce men to forsake sin ; and when they forsake 
sin, and accept proffered mercy, punishment will cease. 

He says the proposition under discussion relates to a 
specified class, namely, those who die in willful disobe- 
dience to the gospel. You will observe that it does not 
say that those who have lived in disobedience to the gos- 
pel shall suffer endless punishment, but those only who 
die in willful disobedience to it. A man may live all his 
lifetime obedient to the gospel, just until the last and 
then die in disobedience, and go to eternal ruin. That is 
the doctrine of his proposition, and he cannot deny it. It 



FIRST REJOINDER. 239 

is not living in disobedience, but dying in disobedience 
that sends them to an eternal hell. It is not rewarding 
men according to their works that sends them there. It is 
not living a whole life in sin that is so dreadful — that is 
nothing — but to die in sin, that is the fell calamity ! A 
man may disobey God through his whole life to the very 
last moment, and yet if he repents before death it will 
be all right, and he will go straight to heaven ! But if 
he has obeyed all his lifetime until the last, and then 
dies a sinner, he will go to an endless hell ! That is the 
doctrine he is to find supported by the Scriptures. Now 
I say, he will not be able to find any such monstrous doc- 
trine in the Bible. Let him find me a passage that sets 
forth in these words, that (i those who die in willful diso- 
bedience to the gospel will suffer endless punishment" if he 
can. He knows he can not do it. And yet a doctrine 
of such fearful character should be set forth in words the 
plainest possible. 

He quoted several passages here, but they did not say 
one word about men dying in willful disobedience, and 
so, therefore, to suffer endless punishment. They had no 
relation to any such characters. The Bible says noth- 
ing about such persons, describes none such, has no such 
words as are in the proposition. I would think, if we 
happen to get there, it should be because we have lived 
rightly, and not because of the state at death. 

He says the heathen are not in the proposition ; and 
he does not want to discuss the question of the salvation 
of. the heathen. But nevertheless I shall have something 
to say in reference to their salvation ; and by their case I 
shall test his principles, and show their absurdity on ac- 
count of the position he is forced to take on the subject 
of their future salvation. I propose to draw him out on 
this question. You know he does not want to hide be- 
hind theological fog-banks ; he don't want to lurk in a 
thicket; he likes to come out into the open field, and dis- 
cuss everything right out in a fair, open-handed manner. 



240 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

But somehow he does skulk into the fog every time the 
heathen are mentioned ! Now he knows that the hea- 
then, who make up a great majority of mankind, die un- 
saved — they die in sin. I would like for him to tell 
how they are going to be saved in the future state on his 
theory. Will he do it ? Elder Clark Braden, one of 
his brethren, says the gospel will be preached to them in 
the future world. It is my position, also, that they will 
have the opportunity of salvation offered them in the fu- 
ture state. But what are the views of my brother here 
about it ? I should like very much to know. 

I find some persons belonging to the Christian Church 
who are not quite perfect, and they die imperfect. I 
wonder how they are to be saved ? I do not suppose that 
brother Carpenter here is wholly perfect. Suppose he 
should die in that imperfection ; how then would he be 
saved in perfection ? You know according to his theory 
death fixes a man's character to all eternity. As he is 
here, so he will be over there, and will be forever. That 
is his doctrine ; how then will he be saved ? It is all 
clear enough on my principles ; but how is it on his ? 

Disobedience to the gospel, he says, is the want of a 
hearty acceptance of Christ. I wonder what he makes 
obedience to be? Has he not a little water in it in this 
life ? And I should like to know whether he does not 
object to opportunity for salvation in the future, because 
there is no water " over there ? " But then, I do not 
know what he will do about that. I think likely there 
is no water there, and he can not have any gospel where 
there is no water. 

He says " punishment" and " banishment," as a pen- 
alty, are represented by fire, brimstone, etc. But I find 
these same terms applied to punishment in this world ; 
and that the fire of punishment in this world is declared 
in the Scriptures to be " eternal," or " forever." Isa. 
34 : 9, 10 ; Jude 7. But in such cases it certainly does 
not mean endless punishment, or eveelasting mis- 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST REJOINDER. 241 

ery ; and if these phrases do not mean endless punish- 
ment as expressing man's condition in this world, by 
what rule are they to be made to mean endless punish- 
ment if applied to man's condition in the future world ? 

My opponent says " endless " is the pivotal word on 
which this discussion turns ; and that "final " was the 
pivotal word in the first proposition. But then, it was 
not. I was to show that all mankind were to be made 
holy and happy, that holiness and happiness was to be- 
come universal ; and then I was to show that this was 
to be the final condition of mankind • and I think I did 
that successfully. At least I am willing to allow you 
to determine whether I did or not. 

My brother says : " Words have their»primary and 
secondary meanings." Well, we are agreed as to that, 
but let us see how that will affect his argument. Now 
I want him to say whether aion and its derivatives 
have their primary meaning when applied to punish- 
ment ; and I want to hear whether that primary mean- 
ing is endless. It is his business in this discussion to 
show that the primary meaning of these words is end- 
less, and that they are so used when applied to punish- 
ment. But this I deny, and I am confident that he 
cannot prove it. 

In reference to the common usage of the words eter- 
nal, everlasting, and forever, there will be no dispute 
between us. He refers to the dictionaries and synon- 
ymists. Well, I believe in the dictionaries, and I 
know the use of these words in the dictionaries. But 
that is not the question. The question turns on the 
usage of these words in the Bible. I hold that the 
Scriptural usage of these words is not the popular one ; 
not as the dictionaries define them. The question is : 
Do the Scriptures teach that all who die in willful dis- 
obedience to the gospel will suffer endless punishment ? 
So he is not to go to Crabbers Synonyms, or Webster's 
Dictionary of the English Language to prove that, or to 
16" 



242 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

define the words of the Bible. He must prove it if at 
all, by the Bible use of those words. 

But he says eternal and everlasting are stronger words 
than the word endless. I admit that, as to the word 
eternal, which literally means without beginning and 
without end. But the question is, I insist, in what 
sense are the words used in the Scriptures. Does he 
mean to say that in the Bible they always mean endless? 
Do the words forever, everlasting, and eternal have the 
same meaning when applied to God, that they do when 
applied to punishment? He will not say that they do, 
as punishment has a beginning, whether it has an end 
or not. But God is eternal in the sense of his eternity, 
without beginning, and without end. 

I will now quote the views of President Milli- 
gan on these terms, as to their Bible usage ; and Mr. 
Milligan is good authority with Bro. Carpenter : 

" The Hebrew word olam and the Greek word axon are each equiv- 
alent to the English word everlasting. They are all relative terms and 
may be applied to any age or period. Thus, for instance, in Exodus 
21 t 6, the word olam is applied to a period of service, and simply 
means that the servant should serve his master as long as he lived. 
In Ex. 40 : 15, it is applied to the Levitical priesthood, and means 
that it should continue throughout the Jewish age, or while the Old 
Covenant should endure. In Gen. 49 : 26, it is applied to the hills, 
and comprehends all time. This is also evidently its meaning in 
Dan. 2 : 44, and many other passages of Scripture. From such prem- 
ises, some have hastily inferred that these words always refer to a 
limited period ; and that they never mean duration without end. 
But they are always perfectly exhaustive of the entire period or cycle 
to which they are applied. If they refer simply to the period of a 
man's life, they exhaust it ; if to an age; they exhaust it ; if to time, 
they exhaust it ; and if to eternity, they, in like manner, exhaust 
it. So that when Christ says these shall go away into everlasting 
punishment, (eis kolasin aionion), but the righteous into everlasting 
life, (eis zoan aionion,) Matt. 25 : 46, he means, beyond all doubt, life 
and punishment without end. Reason and Revelation, pp. 312, 313. 

I have given the entire quotation to avoid the ap- 
pearance of garbling. With the definition given, I 
most heartily agree ; but when it comes to the ques- 
tion of the application of the words to future eternal 






243 

punishment, I, of course, demur. Now, the first part 
of the definition I take to be the primary meaning of 
the words olam and aion ; and he says they are equiv- 
alent to the English word everlasting, and that they are 
all relative terms, and may be applied to any age or period. 
And he says that these terms are exhaustive of the pe- 
riod to which they are applied ; if to an age, they ex- 
haust it ; if to time, they exhaust it; if to eternity, 
they exhaust it. Now, to show that these words are 
applied to any state or condition that is absolutely end- 
less, it is evident, then, that it must be shown from 
something in the nature of the case, rather than by 
the mere application of these words ; for they do not 
of themselves, by their own innate force, express end- 
lessness. Now, will Bro. Carpenter show that in the 
application of these words to his argument? For the 
whole argument turns on their application. I ask him 
here, must he not show that the words eternal, ever- 
lasting, etc., are applied to the final state of mankind, 
are applied to an endless state, before he can make 
good his argument at all ? But he cannot do that, 
and therefore his proposition fails. 

He quotes Dr. Adam Clarke to prove that aion means 
eternal, never-ending, as used in Matt. 25 : 49. But Dr. 
Clarke believed in endless misery, and, of course, would 
agree with the brother's views on that passage. He 
might just as well quote from Bro. Dungan here, or 
any of his brethren. What would he think of me if 
I should quote from Dr. Thayer to prove that these 
words do not so mean in that passage. I go to his wit- 
ness, Pres. Milligan, to prove my position, not one 
on my own side. 

He says that certain lexicographers, to whom he re- 
fers, say that the words aion, aionios, mean eternal. 
Now let him bring in these authorities, and show from 
their works that they make eternal the primary mean- 
ing of these words. [Time expired.] 



244 SECOND PROPOSITION. 



MR CARPENTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Bro. Moderators : — I am gratified, in some re- 
spects, at the effort of my brother in his opening 
speech, on this proposition. In a promiscuous audience 
like this, there is, of course, a great diversity of opin- 
ion and of judgment. There are differences of feeling 
and differences of taste. Some like strong arguments, 
others like to have their sympathies touched, and some 
like fun. I have been trying to do the arguing, and 
my brother has been trying to reach your sensibilities, 
and now and then to touch your risibilities, so as to 
amuse you a little and to keep you wide-awake. Well, 
I guess that is all right. I have no objection, if he 
feels like it, to his trying that again. I believe in di- 
vision of labor ! He introduces the tremendous char- 
acter of the issue involved. True, it is a momentous 
issue, and so much the more important for you to 
" make your calling and election sure." So much the 
more should he be trying to preach the whole truth, 
instead of palliating your consciences ; and so much 
greater his responsibility for preaching his erroneous 
doctrine. Paul, because he knew " the terror of the 
Lord," persuaded men; and we read of their "trem- 
bling" under his preaching. But you Universalist 
friends laugh when you hear your representative ad- 
vocating his doctrine. I saw some of his friends laugh 
when they thought he had perpetrated a witticism. I 
w^ould like to know who ever saw anybody " tremble " 
under the preaching of Universalism. No, its ten- 
dency is to make you at ease in sin, instead of trem- 
bling in fear of the punishment of your sins. He 
says that the doctrine of endless punishment cannot 
be reconciled with the attributes of God. But it is 
not opposed to what we know of the attributes of God. 



MR. CARPENTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 245 

There are many things we cannot comprehend. In our 
imperfect state our knowledge is limited. Men know 
very little in the radical sense. They do not even 
know perfectly the operations of their own minds.. They 
know something about it, but nothing in the minutia. 
Then how imperfect must be their knowledge of the 
attributes of God. So that that does not argue against 
the truth of the doctrine itself. The question is, Is 
this doctrine taught in the Bible ? If so, then we must 
accept it, or reject the teachings of the Word of God. 
But then he introduced Drs. Barnes, Dwight,Dick, and 
others, who could hardly reconcile their doctrine with 
their feelings and their views of God. And I noticed 
that he introduced also some Unitarian and Universal- 
ist authorities along with them, I suppose to keep them 
good company ! But the more of these orthodox wit- 
nesses he introduces the better for me. Why have 
these men who have studied the Bible in the original, 
who were of the first class of Biblical scholars, and 
who,having studied these questions for a lifetime, come 
after all to the conclusion that they have reached on 
this question ? Notwithstanding the expressions of 
their feelings, referred to by the brother, after all their 
research, they have been compelled, by the clearness of 
the Bible evidence, to give their assent to the doctrine 
of future endless punishment. Now why is that, if 
the doctrine is not clearly taught in the Holy Scrip- 
tures ? 

He says that the probabilities are against the doc- 
trine of future endless punishment. Certainly not ; 
for I showed him that the presumption, from the fact 
that it had been generally held among men, that it had 
come down with the other original truths, such as the 
traditions of the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood, 
was in its favor, and I showed that these original 
views, thus generally accepted, must be received unless 



246 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

proof can be adduced that they are not to be so re- 
ceived. 

He says that the final salvation of all mankind is in 
harmony with the will of God. the desire of Christ, 
and the angels, and the wish of all good men. This, 
however, as he states it, is the very thing he ought to 
have proven in his former proposition, but which he 
failed to do. In the determinate sense in which he 
says God wills it, I say it is not true in his sense. But 
he thinks if men are totally depraved, they will be 
happy in hell. Perhaps so. We read of men glorying 
in their shame even in this world. But waxing worse 
is not reaching a totality. He thinks future punish- 
ment is after all not punitive but reformatory. He is 
going to have a grand reform school there for the re- 
formation of the offenders. Well, I would not want 
to go there to be reformed in that way. As to the 
punitive character of the punishments of the other 
world, I have shown that while the righteous will 
" shine as the brightness of the firmament/' that oth- 
ers will rise " to shame and everlasting contempt/' 
and will go into " everlasting punishment/' I 
have shown that there is to be a distinction of charac- 
ter and destiny at the resurrection. Then there is to 
be " eternal life " and " immortality " given to the 
righteous, while the wicked are to be punished with ev- 
erlasting destruction and banishment from the 
peaceful presence of God. Until my brother meets 
my argument, that is all I care about introducing on 
that now. 

He thinks I can have no gospel in the next world, 
because there will be no water there. Another appeal 
to prejudice that is so thin all can see through. But I 
would again kindly admonish him that it might be 
well for him to speak a little more respectful of this 
matter, since we read of one man who had deferred 



ME. CARPENTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 247 

reformation to the future, praying for a single drop to 
cool his parched tongue ! 

But he objects to my proposition because it states 
that those who die in willful disobedience to the gospel 
suffer endless punishment. But did not Christ say to 
the Jews that they shall die in their sins, and that 
whither he went they could not come? And does not 
Ezekiel say that the " wicked man shall die in his 
iniquity ? I read Ezek. 33 : 11, "As I live, saith 
the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death op 
the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, 
and live : turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for 
why will ye die, O house of Israel ? " There is then 
some significance in the " death of the wicked," and 
my friend may have his quarrel with the Scriptures, 
and not with my proposition, if he will. But why 
should he object to reconciliation at the last moment 
of this life, since he admits that a man may be recon- 
ciled at any moment in the future life, and that punish- 
ment ceases at the moment when the reconciliation 
takes place ? 

But then he objects that we hold that a man may sin 
all his life, and then repent at death, and be saved. I 
think lhat is not exactly the general opinion among 
orthodox people as to that matter. Certainly my prop- 
osition affirms no such thing., But he wants to throw 
dust. But then I ask him if it is the tendency of our 
doctrine to make people careless in this life? Who 
does his brother Capen say live the best, the Orthodox 
or the Universalists? Mr. Capen frankly admits that 
Universalists are not as good as their neighbors. 

He says the language of my proposition does not 
occur in the Bible, Suppose it does not. Does the 
language of his proposition occur in the Bible ? What 
kind of ad captandum logic is this? Is he simply bid- 
ding for sympathy, for untaught sentimentalism ? 

But then he thinks it will be a good thing after all 



248 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

for us to have a chance in the future life, because we 
are not perfect, and we may fail at last. He says bro- 
ther Carpenter is not perfect, he thinks, and it might 
be best for him to have a chance in the next world. 
Well, that may be ; but you see he proposes to mix 
the sheep and the goats there, which the Saviour says 
are to be " separated," and he is going to throw them 
all together. Now I think that the sheep and the 
goats had better be kept apart. I do not think we will 
become sheep by mixing with the goats. 

Now you remember that I told you yesterday that 
Christians are reconciled to Christ iiere ; that they are 
" in Christ " here ; and it is those who are reconciled 
to Christ, and are " in Christ " here that will be happy 
in the future state. I think I have said enough on 
that subject for the present. 

I believe he used the expression " if we happen to 
get to the same place, " or something of that sort. I 
thought he was certain about that. I did not suppose 
he had any doubt about his getting to heaven; but 
now it seems it is a " happen to ! " How is that, bro- 
ther ? 

He denies that "final " was the pivotal word in his 
proposition. I should like to know if it was not. I 
showed that he holds that men are free agents here and 
that they will be free agents there. I showed that as free 
agents here they fell, and that as free agents there, for 
all he could show, they might again fall ; and I said 
it was incumbent on him to prove that that was their 
"final" or "last" condition in which he says they ex- 
ist there, and I was prepared to admit for the argument 
that they would become happy, if he would prove that 
that would be their final state, and therefore the whole 
question turned on that word "final" If he can prove 
that holiness and happiness is the "final" condition of 
all men, that will end this discussion at once. The 
meaning of aionios will come up in its place, but he 



MR. CARPENTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 249 

need not attempt to shift it to aion — that is not the 
word. 

He says there will be no difference between us as to 
the ordinary use of the English words forever, everlast- 
ing, etc. I am glad of that admission, and I want it 
to be remembered. By this admission his theory is 
made to repudiate all our translations. We have 
the general use of their Greek and Hebrew equiva- 
lents fixed by lexicographers and commentators, as 
well as by their use in the Scriptures. I have here 
some twenty or thirty authorities with reference to the 
definitions of these words that I can refer to if neces- 
sary ; so we have the authority of these distinguished 
scholars as to the meaning of the original words used 
in this discussion, who have rendered them into the 
English for the use of English-speaking people. It is 
the business and purpose of the translators to render 
these original terms into their English equivalents, and 
the meaning of these English equivalents eternal, ever- 
lasting, etc., is given by Crabbe, Webster, and other 
similar standard English authorities, and in that way 
we can ascertain their true meaning. I am glad, there- 
fore, of that admission of my brother. He quoted 
from President Milligan in regard to the meaning of 
the Hebrew olam, and the Greek aionios. Now what 
does President Milligan say ? After referring to the 
limited use of these words, he says : 

" From such premises some have hastily inferred that these words 
always refer to a limited period ; and that they never mean duration 
without end. But they are always perfectly exhaustive of the en- 
tire period or cycle to which they are applied. If they refer simply 
to the period of a man's life they exhaust it ; if to an age, they ex- 
haust it ; if to time, they exhaust it ; and if to eternity, they, in 
like manner, exhaust it. So that when Christ says " these shall go 
away into everlasting punishment (eis kolasin aionion), but the right- 
eous into everlasting life," (eis zoan aionion), Matt. 25 : 46, he means, 
beyond all doubt, life and punishment without end." — Reason and 
Revelation, pp. 312, 313. 

You will please notice that last sentence of the quo- 



250 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

tation. "Beyond all doubt," he says, in Matt. 25: 
46, it means, " life and punishment without end." 

The brother gave a little more of that quotation than 
I thought he* would. President Milligan is not only 
one of the best writers we have, but he is a pretty 
clear thinker, as well as one of the purest spirits of the 
age. It is true I do not endorse his views in all re- 
spects, but he is pretty clear ; and he is very clear on 
that point. 

Again we have the same term that expresses the du- 
ration of the punishment of the wicked set over 
against that used to express the duration ot the happi- 
ness of the righteous, in that passage in Matt. 25 : 46. 
If the one is to be limited, the other must be, for the 
f-ame word aionion is used in the original here, as ap- 
plied to both these cases. And when I get to heaven 
I am sure I want to stay there forever. But if I am to 
stay there forever, then the wicked are to be punished 
forever ; for it is said, "These shall go away into ever- 
lasting [amnion) punishment ; but the righteous into 
life eternal, (aionion). If aionion measures the joys of 
the righteous there, it must also measure the duration 
of the punishment of the wicked. 

I now resume my argument on the terms everlasting, 
eternal, ate. I was speaking at the expiration of my 
time of the passage in Dan. 12th. Now, it is declared 
in the 13th verse of that chapter that Daniel must first 
" rest" in the sleep of death, and then stand in his lot 
at the end of the days; that is, he shall awake to the 
(i everlasting life " of verse 2nd — he shall stand among 
the just in his " lot." But has Daniel been raised? 
Certainly not. 

Thayer's Theology, (p. 254), the author says, while 
connecting Dan. 12 : 2, and Matt. 25 : 46, as insepera- 
ble, and claiming the fulfillment of their incipient sta- 
ges at the destruction of Jerusalem; " We are satisfied 
that event did not exhaust the import of this pregnant 



ME. CARPENTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 251 

prophecy. We doubt not that it embraces a grand se- 
ries of events, a dispensation in fine, extending through 
the lapse of hundreds of years.down to the period when 
the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms 
of our Lord and his Christ." Now here this Univer- 
salist author refers to Rev; 11 : 15, which he thus puts 
in the future, as he does also the completion of Dan- 
iel's predictions. 

But should we waive all this, the passage still teaches 
the same lesson ; for if the prophet refers to some great 
moral change in time, yet his imagery, his phraseology 
is drawn from the idea of a general resurrection and 
judgment. By his unexplained use, he endorses it ; 
and so the doctrine of final retribution in any inter- 
pretation, is fairly taught in this passage. Mark this. 

I now turn to Matthew 25th. In chapter 24th we 
have the three questions, (v. 3,) concerning the " these 
things," the " sign of thy coming" and the " end of the 
icorld" A very large majority of the standard theo- 
logical writers contend that these include Christ's fu- 
ture coming and judgments. With these we agree. 
Srill in this argument w T e will allow all the Jerusalem 
destruction my opponet wants from that chaptor ; i. e. 
we will build no affirmative argument upon it. He 
may have the whole chapter if he wishes it ; but that 
part of the 25th chapter under consideration is ours. 
Now in the beginning of this chapter we have the par- 
able of the ten virgins ; this is followed by that of the 
ten talents, which cannot be made to fit the Jews or 
the destruction of Jerusalem, as they are certainly not 
the people that had received but one talent, etc. At 
the 31st verse the Saviour introduces his coming, with 
the specifications : He shall come in glory ; with all 
his (A. V. omits " holy") angels ; he shall sit upon 
the throne of his glory ; all nations shall be gathered 
before him in judgment ; he separates them as a man 
divideth the sheep from the goats ; he places the one 



252 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

class on his right hand and the other on his left hand ; 
the one class inherits his kingdom, the other is cast 
into everlasting fire prepared lor the devil and his an- 
gels. And the summary is given in verse 46th : the 
wicked go into " everlasting punishment ; " the 
righteous into "life eternal." The "punishment" 
of the wicked is just equal to the "life " of the right- 
eous, so far as duration is concerned. The one, you see, 
is the antithesis of the other; and this shows that 
when the Lord shall come, as described in this chapter, 
those who are judged by him shall enter upon what 
my brother calls the " final " state, in the sense of that 
which is last, which has nothing else or different be- 
yond it; and this is also clear from 1 Corinthians, 15 : 
47-58 : 

" The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second man is the 
Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are 
earthy : and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heaven- 
ly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also 
bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that 
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God : neither doth 
corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery: 
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in 
the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall 
sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be 
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this 
mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall 
have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immor- 
tality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death 
is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, 
where is thy victory ? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of 
sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory 
through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, 
be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the 
Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the 
Lord." 

Here you see also that we are to be " steadfast, un- 
moveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord," 
lest haply we should lose that portion which has been 
offered unto us in the gospel of Christ. 

But we are aware that Universalists will even tern- 



ME. CARPENTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 253 

poralize these Scriptures to save their baseless theory, 
and they apply all these Scriptures to events occurring 
in time. But the conditions and incidents of the events 
as described in Matthew 25th, fix them at the future 
judgment and the future coming of Christ. We may 
concede that in a sense Christ came at the destruction 
of Jerusalem, on the Mount of Transfiguration, at the 
Pentecost, etc., but the two comings pre-eminently 
spoken of in the Scriptures, and which are denominat- 
ed his first and second comings, relate to his advent at 
Bethlehem, and a coming that is yet future. In proof 
of this future coming, with his holy angels to judge 
the world, to reward the good and punish the bad, I 
submit the following facts and arguments : 1. He 
shall come literally, as he went. (Acts 1 : 11.) 2. Ev- 
ery eye shall see him and mourn for him. (Rev. 1 : 7.) 
3. The sleeping saints shall be raised and meet him. 
(1 Thes. 4 : 16.) 4. Living saints shall be changed 
and meet him. (1 Thes. 4 : 17.) 5. The saints shall 
then ever be with him. (1 Thes. 4 : 17.) 6. His ad- 
vent shall be heralded by the voice of the archangel and 
the trump of God. (1 Thes. 4: \Q.) 7. He shall come 
with ten thousand saints. (Jude 13) 8. He shall then 
execute judgment upon all. (Jude 15.) 9. It shall be 
as a thief in the night. (2 Peter 3 : 10.) 10. Then the 
elements shall melt with fervent heat, and the earth 
shall be burned up. (2 Peter 3 : 10.) 11. The general 
resurrection shall then occur. (1 Cor. 15 : 23-52 ) 12. 
Death shall then be destroyed. (1 Cor. 15 : 26.) 13. 
When he comes in flaming fire, taking vengeance, the 
wicked shall suffer everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. (2 
Thes. 1 : 7-10.) 14. The Man of Sin (the Papal pow- 
er) must first be revealed. (Call it Protestantism if 
you will.) (2 Thes. 2 : 3, 4.) 15. He shall then judge 
the quick and the dead. (2 Tim. 4:1.) 16. Paul and 
all saints then expect their reward, and this after Paul 



254 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

should be " offered up," (die.) (2 Tim. 4 : 6, 7.) 17. 
Then Christ shall deliver up the kingdom — the medi- 
atorial throne. (Zech. 6 :13 ; Heb. 1 : 3 ; 1 Cor. 15:24 ) 
18. If all this occurred at Jerusalem at any time, then 
we are necessarily left out of gospel favor— we have 
no mediator, and are consequently doomed. 

That this Scripture (Matt. 25th) refers to a future 
condition may also be shown from the " inherit the 
kingdom " of verse 34. We are now " heirs," but 
we will finally " inherit." I refer to James 2:5: 

" Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor 
of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath 
promised to them that love him." 

Rom. 8: 16, 17: 

" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the 
children of God : and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint- 
heirs with Christ." 

But here we have only the " earnest " of the inherit- 
ance — we receive only a portion in advance ; but we 
are to be possessors by and by. Eph. 1 : 13, 14 : 

" In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth 
the gospel of your salvation : in whom also, after that ye believed 
ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest 
of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, 
unto the praise of his glory." 

And when Christ shall come, " at the end of the 
world," we shall enter into his " everlasting kingdom," 
and possess the glory of which Peter speaks. 2 Peter 
1: 10, 11 : 

" Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your 
calling and election sure : for if ye do these things, ye shall never 
fall : for so an entrance shall be administered unto you abundantly 
into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ." 

But we are to use diligence to make our calling and 
election sure, so that we may enter that kingdom ; so 
that if we do not use this diligence, we shall fail of it 
at the last. 

I will not at this time take up the argument on the 



MR. CARPENTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 255 

original words ; but will introduce here my second ar- 
gument, viz : 

II. Christ will deliver up the mediatorial throne, after 
which salvation will be impossible. 

Now three things are to be here proven : 1. That 
salvation is attainable only through Christ, as a Media- 
tor and a Priest. 2. That the time is coming when he 
will cease to act as such. 3. That at the time he shall 
surrender his mediatorial throne there will yet be those 
unsaved. 

That salvation is through Christ's priestly mediation 
only we prove conclusively from the following Scrip- 
tures, representing him as officiating through the mer- 
its of his own blood. John 14: 6 : "lam the way, 
the truth, and the life : no man cometh unto the Fa- 
ther, but by me." Zech. 6 : 12, 13 : 

" And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, 
saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH ; and he shall 
grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord : 
even he shall build the temple of the Lord ; and he shall bear the 
glory, and. shall sit and rule upon his throne ; and he shall be a 
priest upon his throne : and the counsel of peace shall be between 
them both." 

This passage is very significant, presenting Christ, of 
whom the prophet is speaking, as both king and priest, 
— " a priest upon his throne." I read again from 
Heb. 1:3: 

" Who, being the brightness of his glory and the express image 
of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, 
when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand 
of the Majesty on high." 

Here Christ is presented seated on his mediatorial 
throne having purged our sins, and sat down on the 
right hand of the Majesty on high. I quote again. 
(Heb. 2:17): 

" "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto 
his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in 
things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
people." 



256 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Here, as our High Priest, he is represented as "mak- 
ing reconciliation for the sins of the people." These 
Scriptures shall suffice for this point. 

I will next show that he will vacate his mediatorial 
throne when his enemies are subdued, the resurrection 
and judgment past, and the fate of all is fixed. I read 
1 Cor. 15: 21-28: 

" For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall 
all be made alive. But every man in his own order : Christ the 
first-fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then 
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to 
God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule, and 
all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all 
enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is 
death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he 
saith, All things are put under him, it is manifest that he is except- 
ed, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall 
be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto 
him that -put all things under him, that God may be all in all." 

Now mark the "end " of Christ's mediatorial work 
will not be till after the resurrection : "then," i.e. after 
the resurrection, " cometh the end." This and the 
judgment past, this special ivork, or commission of 
Christ, will be surrendered. See Barnes and Clarke, in 
loco. Thayer agrees. (See Theology, pp. 527, 228.) 
Both Cobb and Paige (Universalists) refer this "end," 
of verse 24, to the end of Christ's mediatorial reign, 
and Cobb refers the coming (v .23) to a " resurrection 
coming" Both make the " delivering up %) refer to the 
mediatorial reign. 

These points being incontrovertibly established, it 
only remains to show that some will be unsaved when 
Christ's work is done by the final and actual destruc- 
tion of death by the general resurrection. Mr. Thay- 
er, editor of the Universalist Quarterly, in his work 
on the Theology of Universalism, treating of 1 Cor. 15 : 
23, 24, the passage now before us, says (p. 228), " Con- 
sequently this power (of Christ's) to save continues be- 



MR. HUGHES' SECOND REJOINDER. 257 

yond death ; continues, as Paul says, till the end com- 
eth, and this end, as shown, comes after the resurrection, 
and the destruction of all evil.'' [Time expired.] 

MR. HUGHES' SECOND REJOINDER. 

Messrs. Moderators : — I think I understand now 
very fully the gentleman's argument, and I anticipate 
no difficulty whatever in meeting it. But before no- 
ticing his arguments, I wish to refer to a few introduc- 
tory matters in his last speech. 

He admits all the dreadful, the unutterable horrors of 
eternal punishment ; and I say here, that that is one of 
the strongest arguments against the doctrine. But he 
says it is nevertheless true; and when it was preached 
in ancient times, the people " trembled." But he must 
not say it was the doctrine of endless misery that made 
them tremble. He has not yet proved that Christ and 
his apostles preache^ endless future punishment. Let 
him not assume the doctrine true, until he proves it. 
Many a man has trembled in fear of present retribution. 
But I would say, that a doctrine that revolts all the finer 
feelings of our nature, as does the doctrine of endless 
punishment, cannot be true. 

But then, I introduced a number of Doctors of Di- 
vinity, several of whom are recognized as orthodox, who 
expressed themselves as to the terribleness of this theory 
of eternal punishment; and he complains that I intro- 
duced some Universalist and Unitarian authorities 
among them. But what of that ? There is Dr. John 
Foster, the great Baptist divine, who believed in the 
final salvation of all men ; he will not say anything 
against him. And there is Dr. Channing, as pure-mind- 
ed a man as ever wrote on the Bible ; he can not object 
to him. Leigh Hunt, of poetic fame, than whom none 
ever had a fairer reputation, was a Universalist. Dr. 
Dick, also, was a Universalist ; but his standing in lit- 
17 



258 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

erature, and as a writer on moral philosophy, will not be 
questioned. Prof. Stuart and Dr. Barnes are good 
enough company for anybody ; but they are no better 
than the others whom we have named. It hurts my 
friend to hear the testimony of these great and good men 
against the doctrine he advocates, as an outrage on rea- 
son, our best affections, and all the pure and tender sen- 
sibilities of our nature. 

He has admitted all along, that God, Christ, the an- 
gels, and all good men, desire the salvation of all man- 
kind.* Why, Bro. Carpenter said he " longed for the 
salvation of men ! " Now, if he will be as good a man 
in the future world as he is here, he will be on my side 
there, as he is here, in his heart's desire. And if God, 
and Christ, and the angels, and the good of earth, will 
all desire the salvation of all there, as they do here ; 
then all will be in favor of the final holiness and happi- 
ness of all mankind. And who will be against it?- 
Now, if he and his brethren, who. are believers in the 
doctrine of endless punishment, will only go with us to 
preaching what they desire, and God, and Christ, and 
the angels desire, it will be proved true, without doubt, 
by the final redemption and salvation of all men. 

He says, that I said, that men will be happy in hell. 
I certainly said no such thing. What I said was that, 
if man in the world of punishment becomes wholly evil, 
according to my brother's theory, then will he not be 
in his natural atmosphere, and will he not be happy in 
it ? That is the question I asked ; and I would be glad 
to get an answer. Will the brother favor us with one? 
We shall see. I went on to say, that if man's moral 
nature be not destroyed, there will still be some good 
left in him; that this good will struggle for the mastery, 
and so there will be a possibility of man's being finally 
saved. I said, also, that this made punishment for the 
suppression of evil, and for the good of the offender ; and 
that if evil becomes the master, it destroys all the good 






259 

in man, then punishment becomes impossible ; that the 
divine image being lost, annihilation is the result. You 
will see that he will not touch that argument ! I do not 
believe that there is a man living, that can take it out 
of my hands ! 

He quotes Bro. Capen again, and sings the old song 
again, that Universalists are not as good as the members 
of other churches. Well, I freely admit that they are 
not as good as they ought to be. I wish they were bet- 
ter. It does not become us to think more highly of our- 
selves than we ought to think. But I do say that they 
are as good as their neighbors ! A divided church 
here (in Bloomfield) ought to close my brother's mouth 
on that subject forever ! ! 

He says the language of my proposition is not in the 
Bible. But his proposition relates to a specified class, 
those who die in willful disobedience to the gospel. Now, 
I say there is not one word in the Scriptures that says 
anything about men who die in willful disobedience suf- 
fering endless punishment; and he can not show that 
that there is. He can not show a single instance in the 
Bible where punishment is spoken of as being inflicted 
because men die in disobedience. Punishment is never 
predicated of that. Let him bring forward such a pas- 
sage, and I will yield the question- 
But he says, I am mixing the sheep and the goats ; and 
that it is those who are reconciled to Christ here, that will 
be saved hereafter. Now I admit that some men are 
reconciled to Christ here, but not so perfectly as they 
will be hereafter. I think there is some little imper- 
fection, even in Bro. Carpenter, if he wants to know 
it, there is just a little bit of goat in him yet. It will 
finally be expunged, of course. But if, on his theory, 
he goes to eternity as he is, and there is no chance of 
change in the future, he will be imperfect forever, and 
he must go to the "fire and brimstone" of which he 
has been talking to us here. An opportunity for im- 



260 SECOND PEOPOS1T10N. 

provement in that state will not be a bad thing, even 
for him. 

He thought I felt certain of going to heaven, but 
now he thinks, from what I said, I am not so certain, 
after all. He says I said, "if we both happen to meet 
there." Of course I meant on his hypothesis. Well, I 
understand that positive knowledge comes only by ex- 
perience. I believe I shall be eternally saved, of course, 
and that all men will be finally saved also. But enough 
of that. 

But he says the translators of the Bible are in favoY 
of his interpretation of the word aion. Let us see. 
We have, in the New Testament, the word aion used 
as follows : 

The phrase, "Since the world (aion) began," occurs 
six times. It certainly can not mean since the eternity 
began. 

I find the phrases, " This world aion" " that world 
(aion)" " course (aion) of this world," twenty times. It 
cannot mean this eternity, that eternity, and the eternity 
of this world. 

The phrase, " The end of the world (aion)," occurs 
seven times. Surely not meaning the end of eternity. 

The phrase, " World (aion) to come," occurs three 
times. Certainly not the eternity to come. 

I find aion in the plural number in cases not given 
above, seven times. As there is but one eternity, so aion 
is not a synonym of eternity.. 

The phrase eis ton aiona, with negative particle, oc- 
curs seven times, and is rendered never in the common 
English version* Eis ton aiona rendered forever, occurs 
twenty-four times. The phrase eis tous monas, plural 
form, also rendered forever, occurs eight times. We also 
find the re-duplication (eis ton aiona ton aionas) ren- 
dered forever and ever, twenty-one times. Prof. Tayler 
Lewis says: "This effect (idea of vast duration) is 
still frther increased by plurals and re-duplications." 



ME. hughes' second rejoindee. 261 

But if the word axon literally means eternity, it gives an 
idea that can not be increased by plurals and re-dupli- 
cations. 

The phrase eiston aiona, is once rendered, " while the 
world standeth." It would be simply nonsense for the 
apostle to say : " If meat make my brother to offend, 
I will eat no flesh while the eternity standeth" 1 Cor. 
8: 13. 

This summary includes every occurrence of the word 
axon in the New Testament. Does its rendering in the 
common version favor the idea of my brother, that the 
translators understood it in the- sense of eternity ? It 
demonstrates, I must be allowed to say, that the use of 
the word aion in the New Testament is not in the sense 
of eternal. The brother will please notice that. 

Now I have something to say about Matt. 25 : 31-46. 
He admits that the Saviour's discourse in Matt., 24th 
chapter, applies to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now 
I am going to hold him fast there — 

Me. Caepentee. — I did not admit that. I said you 
might have the 24th of Matthew for the purposes of 
your argument; that I should not build an affirmative 
argument on it. But I did not admit that it applied to 
the destruction of Jerusalem ; for I do not believe it." 

Me. Hughes. — " But you admitted it for the pur- 
poses of my argument, you say?" 

Me. Caepentee.—" I did." 

Me. Hughes. — Very well. Now, it is said in 
the 1st verse of Matt., 25th chapter : " then shall 
the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins," 
etc. I call your attention particularly to that word 
"then." ]Now this word then, is an adverb of 
time. But to what time does it here refer ? Why, to 
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, of which the 
Saviour, according to my brother's admission, had just 
been speaking. " Then," says he, " shall the king- 
dom of heaven be likened," etc. And then the dis- 



262 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

course goes on without a break, or a change of subject, 
to the close of the 25th chapter. He cannot find a 
place where there is a change of subject ; where the 
subject of the destruction of Jerusalem is dropped, and 
the subject of a general judgment at the end of time ta- 
ken up. I deem this vital to a right understanding of 
the Saviour's disccurse in these chapters. Will the 
brother allow it to claim his attention? 

Now, in Matt. 24 : 30, we read, and " then shall appear 
the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall 
all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the 
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power 
and great glory." The brother admits that that" com- 
ing" took place at the destruction of Jerusalem. That 
is his admission. Now we will turn to Matt. 25 : 31-46, 
and read : 

" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy 
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And 
before him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall separate them 
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats ; 
and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye 
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world : for I was a hungered, and ye gave me 
meat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; I was a stranger, and 
ye took me in ; naked, and ye clothed me : I was sick, and ye visited 
me ; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the right- 
eous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, and 
fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink ? When saw we thee a 
stranger, and took thee in ? or naked, and clothed thee ? Or when 
saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King 
shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as 
as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye 
have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left 
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for 
the devil and his angels : for I was a hungered, and ye gave me no 
meat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink ; I was a stranger, and- 
ye took me not in ; naked, and ye clothed me not ; sick, and in pris 
on, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, 
Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or na- 
ked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee ? Then 
shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye 



263 

did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these 
shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into 
life eternal." 

Now, is not the coming spoken of in the 31st verse, 
the same coming spoken of in the 24th chapter ? If 
so, this coming is past ; and this is the brother's ad- 
mission. So he evidently defeats himself, and. the 
coming in Matthew 24th is not future, but is 
past, and fails to serve the purpose of his argument. 
But this coming of Christ in judgment is past, whether 
he admits it or not. 

In Matt. 16 : 27, 28, we read : 

" For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with 
his angels ; and then he shall reward every man according to his 
works. Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here, which 
hall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his 
kingdom." 

Does not the Saviour mean here exactly what he 
means when he says " They shall see the Son of man 
coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great 
glory ? * * * Verily, I say unto you, This genera- 
tion shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." 
Matt. 24 : 30-34. It is certainly the same coming. It 
is described in the same language. In one case the 
Saviour says : "There be some standing here, (some 
then present,) which shall not taste of death, (shall not 
die,) till they see the Son of man coming in his king- 
dom," In the other case, that " generation " was not 
to pass till the prediction of his coming w T as fulfilled. 
Could anything be plainer? These passages clearly 
put Christ coming in judgment in the past ; and if we 
believe the Saviour, then we must believe that he has 
thus come, and that these things have been fulfilled. 

But then he claims that there is to be a future second 
coming of Christ, and he quotes several passages to 
prove it. Much is said about Christ's " second com- 
ing;" but Christ's coming in judgment is never called 
a " second coming." In fact, the phrase u second com- 



264 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

ing " does not occur in the Bible ; the nearest approach 
to it is in Heb. 9 : 27, 28 : 

1 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the 
judgment : so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and 
unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without 
sin unto salvation." 

But this is not his coming back to earth again in 
judgment; it is his appearance in heaven in the pres- 
ence of God for us, as in verse 24 : 

" For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear 
in the presence of God for us." 

This is not a coming in which all shall see him, 
(Matt. 24: 30-34; Kev. 1 : 7,) but a conditional ap- 
pearing. " Unto them that look for him, shall heap- 
pear the second time," etc. He is to be seen by the 
eye cf faith appearing before God for us. The broth- 
er will not find a single passage to prove a coming of 
Christ back to earth again, under the phraseology of a 
" second coming." 

Now, here in Matt. 24tb, we have a coming of 
Christ. Then, he was to come in the clouds of hea- 
ven, in power and great glory, and send his angels with 
a great sound of a trumpet, and gather together his 
elect from the four winds," etc. And brother Carpen- 
ter admits that all this took place at the destruction 
of Jerusalem — admits that it is all past. Then this 
coming of the Lord was his second coming for his first 
coming was in the flesh, when he came as the Babe of 
Bethlehem. So then, I have found a second coming 
of Christ, which is already past. I will, however, 
cheerfully admit that there is a coming of Christ yet 
future ; but at that coming of Christ, there will be no 
judgment. I read : • 

" For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive. But every man in his own order : Christ the first fruits, af- 
terward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, 
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the father ; 
when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. 



265 

For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The 
last enemy that shaH be destroyed is death. For he hath put all 
things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under 
him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things un- 
der him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then 
shall the Son also himself be subject under him, that God may be all 
in all." 1 Cor. 15 : 22-28. 

Now when Christ comes at the time of" the end," you 
see he " delivers up the kingdom." He is then no long- 
er a ruler, no longer a king, no longer a judge; for he 
gives up his authority ; and as all things are subdued 
unto him, so his judgment is ended, and he becomes 
subject to the Father, and God is all in all. For the 
kiDg always rules and 'judges in his kingdom ; but 
when he gives up his kingdom, he no longer has the 
authority of a judge. So there is to be no judgment 
by Christ at his last coming. Let my brother note that 
fact. 

My friend enumerates a great many items in refer- 
ence to the coming of Christ, as to the manner of his 
coming, and what is to take place when he comes. 
These items he specifies, gives chapter and verse, and 
a few words of Scripture on each item, as follows: 
"He is to come literally." Acts 1 : 11. " He shall 
come in like manner." " Every eye shall see him." 
Kev. 1:7. " The dead shall be raised." 1 Thes. 4 : 
13-18. "The living changed." 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52, 
etc. I need not follow his enumeration further. Suf- 
fice it to say, that his mistake is in • confounding the 
two comings of the Saviour, and applying what is said 
of one to the other. A proper classification makes all 
plain. 

A few words in regard to the judgment scene de- 
scribed in Matt. 25 : 31-46. Here we have the judge, 
and three classes of persons introduced. First, there 
are the friends of the judge; then those that are his 
enemies ; and then those who have ministered unto the 
friends of the judge. Now it is not said that the ene- 



266 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

mies of Christ were condemned because they were in a 
certain condition when they died ; but because they had 
not ministered unto him or to his disciples. It is a 
judgment according to works, and not a judgment that 
discriminates as to their condition at the time of death. 
I will read verses 34-46 : 

" Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye 
Messed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world ; for I was a hungered, and ye gave me meat ; 
I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; I was a stranger, and ye took 
me in ; naked, and ye clothed me ; I was sick, and ye visited me ; I 
was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous an- 
swer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, and fed thee ? 
or thirsty, and gave thee drink ? When saw we thee a stranger, and 
took thee in ? or naked, and clothed thee ? Or when saw we thee 
sick, or in prison, and came unto thee ? And the King shall answer 
and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done 
it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto 
me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
angels ; for I was a hungered, and ye gave me no meat ; I was 
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink ; I was a stranger, and ye took me 
not in ; naked, and ye clothed me not : sick, and in prison, and ye 
visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when 
saw we thee a hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, 
or in prison, and did not minister unto thee ? Then shall he answer 
them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one 
of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away 
into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life eternal." 

Now this is Christ's own description of his judgment. 
Let us apply it by a supposed case. We will take a 
man that has lived, say fifty years. He has not been a 
member of the church. He has not ministered to the 
disciples. He has never done any of the things spoken 
of in the passage. But just before he dies, he repents, 
and is baptized by my brother, and is received into the 
church. He soon dies ; and finally is brought before 
the judgment seat ; and it is said by the Judge : u Come, 
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared 
for you from the foundation of the world ; for I was a 
hungered, and ye gave me meat ; I was thirsty, and ye 
gave me drink ; I was a stranger, and ye took me in ; 



MR. HUGHES' SECOND REJOINDER. 267 

naked, and ye clothed me ; I was sick, and ye Visited 
me ; I was in prison, and ye came unto me ." But the 
man says : " Lord, I have no remembrance of giving 
you meat, or doing any of these things to you." The 
judge answers : " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one 
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto 
me." But the man says : " I never did it unto them 
either." Can not my brother see the very circumstan- 
ces of the case forbid the application of the passage ? 
It will very fitly represent a judgment at the com- 
mencement of Christ's reign, in which he rewards those 
who were faithful in the establishment of Christianity, 
and those who ministered to them in their wants; and 
rejects and punishes those who opposed his kingdom, 
and persecuted his disciples. It is clearly a judgment 
according to works, and not a decision as to the charac- 
ter of men just when they die. My brother has not pro- 
duced a passage which makes man's final condition 
turn upon the way in which he dies. You will remem- 
ber that that is his proposition. He is to show that 
some will suffer endless punishment because they DIE 
in willful disobedience. 

Just here let me apply my brother's criticism on the 
phrase "all nations," etc., to his interpretation of the 
passage "in Matt 25th. In the 32d verse we read that 
" all nations shall be gathered before him," etc. Now 
he says, this is a general judgment at the end of time, 
and that " all nations," in the sense of " all individuals/ 9 
are to be gathered there. He makes "all nations" to 
mean all men here. But is he sure of that ? You re- 
member his quotation from Zech. 14 : 2 : " For I will 
gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle. " And 
Jer. 3:17. " At that time they shall call Jerusalem 
the throne of the Lord ; and all the nations shall be 
gathered unto it;" and he wanted to know whether 
" all nations " there meant all people, whether themen, 
women and children, if every individual, was ever gath- 



268 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

ered there at Jerusalem. He said, you know, that " all 
nations," " all families," " all flesh," etc., in the pas- 
sages I quoted, do not mean literally all mankind; that 
they do not mean a mathematical whole. But by what 
law of language does he find " all nations " to mean all 
mankind in this passage ? Why is it a mathemat- 
ical whole here ? I hold him to his position on these 
terms; and if he says " all nations" includes all man- 
kind in this passage, then he must admit that it includes 
all mankind in the other passages. Let him stand by 
his own rule, or else yield the argument. 

In reference to the passage quoted from Dan. 12 : 2, 
" Many of them that sleep iu the dust of the earth shall 
awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame 
and everlasting contempt." You will observe that it 
is not " the many " that shall awake ; but " many OF 
them." It is not all mankind, but many of a certain 
class, namely, many of those who sleep in the dust of 
the earth. This passage does not prove a universal 
resurrection, and so therefore has no reference to a 
resurrection to immortality. Besides, this resurrection, 
or awakening, was to be at the great " time of trouble" 
mentioned in the first verse. 1 read the verses in con- 
nection : 

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, and the great prince 
which standeth for the children of thy people ; and there shall be a 
time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to 
that same time ; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, ev- 
ery one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them 
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, 
and some to shame and everlasting contempt." 

This " time of trouble " is referred to by Christ in 
Matt. 24: 15-21. 

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spo- 
ken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso read- 
eth, let him understand.) Then let them which be in Judea flee into 
the mountains. Let him which is on the housetop not come down to 
take any thing out of his house ; neither let him which is in the field 
return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with 



MR. HUGHES' SECOND REJOINDER. 269 

child, and to them that give suck in those days ! But pray ye that 
your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day ; for then 
shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the 
world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." 

Now Pres. Milligan says, in his Biblical Analysis that 
the " abomination of desolation " is the Roman army ; 
and so do all other commentators. This the Saviour 
quotes from Daniel as applying to the destruction of 
Jerusalem ; and quoting again from Dan. 12 : 1, he 
says : " Then shall be great tribulation, such as was 
not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, 
nor ever shall be." But Bro. Carpenter admits that 
the 24th of Matthew applies to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, at least for the purposes of my argument, and the 
Saviour makes Dan. the 12th parallel to it. That not 
only fixes the time of Christ's coming in judgment in 
the past, but it also determines the application of Dan. 
12: 1, 2. So it fails to help the brother in his argu- 
ment. 

But my friend says that Christ is to deliver up his 
mediatorial throne, and after that salvation will be im- 
possible. Now I want to be frank with him, and I 
will say, that if he will prove that any will be unsaved 
when Christ delivers up his mediatorial kingdom, then 
I will yield this argument. My reason is this : I be- 
lieve before that event, as Paul shows, Christ will re- 
concile and subdue all things unto himself; and all op- 
posing power and authority, with death, the last enemy, 
will be destroyed. Death being the " last enemy/' 
then no other enemies will remain. Then he will have 
reconciled unto himself all things in the heavens and 
which are in earth ; and when he has subdued all things 
unto himself, then he will also be subject unto him 
that put all things under him, that God may be all in 
all. When God is all in all, there will be none un- 
saved. 

He speaks of Christ trampling down his enemies. I 



270 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

was forcibly reminded of DanieVs (< ram " stamping 
with his feet, when he stamped with his feet to illus- 
trate how Christ will trample down his enemies. I 
dislike to hear any man speak of Christ in that way 
I do not like to see any man represent Christ as if he 
were actuated by feelings of vengeance and malignity 
such as exist in the breasts of wicked men. It is an 
outrage on the character of him who is " meek and 
lowly in heart." I know he is to subdue wicked men, 
but he will subdue them by the power of his truth and 
love. It is a moral subjugation, to be brought about 
by moral means. They are to be subjugated in the 
same sense that Christ is to be subject unto God, and 
God is to be " all in all." I wonder, when God is all 
in all, whether the devil will be in any ? 

We have seen when the Saviour's kingdom com- 
menced. Before some standing there were to die, he 
was to come in his kingdom — that kingdom fully es- 
tablished at the destruction of Jerusalem — at that time 
he was to commence his rule and judgment. Now Jer- 
emiah says : " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, 
that I will raise unto David, a righteous Branch, and a 
king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judg- 
ment and justice in the earth." Jer. 23 : 5. Now 
he judges here, while in his kingdom, he is judging 
men now. But when he delivers up his kingdom, he 
will no longer judge. 

In 2 Tim. 4 : 1, quoted by my opponent, it is said : 
"I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, 
who shall judge the quickdind the dead, at his appearing 
and his kingdom." But when does hejudge th^ quick 
and the dead? My brother says, at a future coming 
of Christ, at the end of time. But Paul says, " at his 
appearing AND kingdom :" and Christ tells us when 
that appearing in his kingdom should be ; that it was 
to be before some who beard him teach should taste of 
death — before the existing "generation" should pass 



ME. CARPENTER'S THIED SPEECH. 271 

away. From the time of his appearing in his kingdom 
he has been judging the quick and the dead — the living 
and the dead — and will continue to do so until nis reign 
closes. 

In 1 Pet. 4 : 5, he is said to be " ready to judge the 
quick and the dead." I want to know whether he got 
ready to do that work over eighteen hundred years too 
soon? How is that, Bro. Carpenter? It is well enough 
to notice, too, that Peter also says, in the same chap- 
ter : " The time is come that judgment must begin at 
the house of God ; and if it first begin at us, what shall 
be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God ?" 
In Acts 10 : 42, we read that he was " ordained of God 
to be the judge of quick and dead." Was he ordained 
to be a judge thousands of years before he was to begin 
to judge ? Are ministers ordained to the ministry long 
before they are ready to begin the work of the minis- 
try ? I say he commenced to do the work he was or- 
dained to do, just when he was ordained to do it. 

[lime expired.] 

ME. CAEPENTEE'S THIED SPEECH. 

Bro. Moderators : — I think the audience will 
agree with me that most of the points I have presented 
in my argument on this proposition, thus far, remain 
untouched. I shall therefore make short work in my 
review of the brother's last speech. 

He introduces certain doctors of divinity, and puts 
some compliments on them which I do not deny. But 
I have this query : Whether we can trust our brother's 
interpretation of these doctors ? for they held, notwith- 
standing what they had said about its terribleness, to 
the doctrine of endless punishment — that is, the ortho- 
dox doctors whom he named, were compelled by the 
Scripture proofs, to accept this very doctrine. He han- 
dles them as we think he handles the Bible, and he cer- 



272 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

tainly is not a trustworthy commentator upon them, as 
I think he is not upon the Bible. He finds something 
in the Bible I cannot see, and that these doctors of di- 
vinity could not see, and he says therefore the Bible 
teaches his doctrine. And he finds a few expressions in 
the writings of these doctors that seem to him to be in 
his favor, and so he quotes them as if they were sus- 
taining his proposition. Does he mean to say that they 
denied the doctrine of future endless punishment ? How 
is that brother Hughes ? He wants to know if I shall 
be as good over there as I am here, and if so he thinks I 
will be on his side and hold to universal salvation. 
Well, I suppose I will be as good there as I am here, 
but that does not prove his point. I may not hold to 
it there any more than I do here. 

He wants to know if I would not preach to sinners 
there as well as here, in order to induce them to accept 
Christ. I have been all along calling for a " commis- 
sion " to preach there, but he has not produced it. If 
he wants me to preach there, he must find me a commis- 
sion directing me to do so. And until he does that, I 
need say no more on that subject. 

But my opponent says Christ was ordained to be a 
judge, and thinks he was not thus ordained thousands 
of years before he was to exercise this office. But we 
fail to see the force of the objection. Are we not taught 
he was appointed a Saviour from the foundation of the 
world — four thousand years prior to his coming to die, 
that salvation might be possible? Why then object to 
his being appointed a judge before he sat upon the judg- 
ment seat ? 

But he refers to punishment, and says you cannot pun- 
ish men unless there is some good in them, and if there 
is good in them, by its inherent power, it will predomi- 
nate over the evil, and so all men will be saved. But 
why does it not predominate here where the opportuni- 
ties are so much better than they will be when all the 



273 

good shall be separated from them ? And he wants to 
know if I believe that sinners will be totally depraved 
there, because he says if they are, they cannot be pun- 
ished, and so my doctrine fails. ' Well, "waxing 
worse" is not reaching totality; but I suppose the 
devil is about totally depraved, and yet he is capable of 
punishment. And then the rich man was punished af- 
ter death, and he did not seem to have much hope of re- 
lief from any goodness remaining in him, for he was 
told that there was a great gulf fixed between him and 
the righteous and that that gulf was impassable, and 
even his prayer was unheeded. 

He wants to know if I think there will be any water 
there. I will be ready to discuss that question when it 
is in the proposition. But I have said my brother 
would better not make too light of that matter. The 
Rich Man wanted some water to cool his tongue, and it 
does not appear that he got it. And that does not seem 
to favor my brother's side of the argument either. 

Bro. Hughes thinks I am inconsistent in making the 
words all nations, in Matt. 25:32, a mathematical whole, 
after I denied that meaning to the same terms in pas- 
sages introduced by him. Well, is he less inconsistent? 
Why will he not give the same meaning to the terms 
here that he claimed elsewhere ? But we do not claim a 
mathematical whole, as including every individual of 
the race, even here. We do not claim that Enoch and 
Elijah, who were translated, nor yet those who were 
raised with Christ, will be included. 

He refers to my remarks respecting the translators, 
and says they translated the terms referred to so and so. 
Yery well ; but the question is : what do these words 
mean in the particular passages named ? What does 
" everlasting " and "eternal " mean in Matt. 25 : 
46 ? What does " everlasting " mean in 2 Thes. 1 : 
9? Who shall be punished with " everlasting" destruc- 
tion? etc. What do these words in these and other 
18 



274 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

passages that have been adduced mean ? That is the 
question. And what do all these learned translators 
and commentators say as to the meaning of the original 
words in these passages ? That is the question — not as to 
the meaning of these words somewhere else, or how they 
have been rendered somewhere else. Commentators 
must judge of the context, of course, in making up a 
decision as to the meaning of a word in any particular 
passage. We may press that argument by and by. 

He again brings up my position on Matthew 24th. 
What I said was this, that he might have the 24th of 
Matthew, if he chose, for the purposes of his argument, 
that I would found no affirmative argument upon it. 
But I did not admit that it refers exclusively to the 
destruction of Jerusalem. I said I did not believe that. 
But he is trying here to hold me to an admission I did 
not make. He cannot make much by that course of pro- 
cedure, I think. It shows the strait that he is in. 

My brother quotes : 

" For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with 
his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his 
works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which 
shall not see death till they see the Son of Man coming in his king- 
dom. Matt. 16 : 27, 28. 

And he says that it is the same coming which is re- 
ferred to in Matthew 24th, viz : his coming at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. I know there are some respect- 
able commentators who confound these two events, and 
identify the coming of Matt. 16th with the coming which 
he says is referred to in Matt. 24th. But let me read 
the connection, commencing at the 24th verse : 

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples,If any man will come after me 
let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For who- 
soever will save his life, shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his 
life for my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he 
shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? or what shall a 
man give in exchange for his soul ? " 

Now notice what is said here : " Whosoever will 
save his life, [that is, his present, temporal life,] shall 



MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD SPEECH. 275 

lose it, [that is, shall lose that future eternal happiness 
which I have shown is promised to the faithful.] But 
whosever will lose his life, [i. e. will die for Christ's 
sake,] shall find it, [shall have eternal life.] For what 
shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world 
and lose his own soul ? or what shall a man give in ex- 
change for his soul ? " Now here is the thought before 
us — -the losing of the temporal life, the gaining of the fu- 
ture eternal life, which passes it over beyond death. 
The man that dies for Christ is to have a life beyond 
death greater than the one he loses here. The man that 
saves his life here loses the life promised over there ; and 
this is made sure, because the " Son of Man will come 
in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then 
shall he reward every man according to his works." 
And that rewarding must be beyond the resurrection, 
for it is a rewarding of those who lose their lives for 
Christ's sake ; and, therefore, the " coming " here refer- 
red to must be a future coming. 

But now as those that heard him might doubt as to 
this matter, he says : " There be some standing here that 
shall not see death till they see the Son of Man coming 
in his kingdom." That is, they shall see the opening of 
his earthly kingdom, of which the resurrection and the 
judgment form the close. Thus the 28th verse refers to 
the beginning of that of which the 27th verse speaks of 
the close. But Bro. Hughes says that the kingdom was 
set up at the destruction of Jerusalem. Whoever heard 
of such an idea before ? By what Scriptures can he 
prove it ? 

In reference to this subject of the second coming of 
Christ I have a few other thoughts to present. 

In Acts 1 : 9-11 we have a passage that shows how lit- 
erally the Saviour will come : 

" And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he 
was taken up ; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And 
while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, 



276 SECOND PEC-POSITION. 

two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men 
of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus 
which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like man- 
ner as ye have seen him go into heaven." 

Now, I ask, has he ever come in this literal manner ? 
Has he come in the same manner in which he went up to 
heaven ? Has that ever transpired ? Was it at the 
mount of transfiguration ? Was it at the pentecost 
when the promise of the Father was fulfilled to the 
church ? Was it at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Did 
he then come " in the clouds " as he went up into 
heaven? Did every eye see him ? Did he bring his 
reward ? And yet the coming referred to in Acts is un- 
doubtedly that coming referred to in Matt. 25th. That 
coining, since this prediction was not there fulfilled, 
must, therefore, be a future coming. I admit there is a 
sense in which he came on the day of Pentecost, but 
that was not the coming here spoken of. You noticed 
the stress my brother put upon the word " then " in 
Matt. 25 : 1. He says that word " then," used there, is 
an adverb of time, and not of place, and that it there re- 
fers to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Then 
we may substitute the definition of the word for the word, 
in that connection, and let us see how it v/ill read : 
" Then [at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem] the 
kingdom of heaven shall be likened unto ten virgins," 
etc. " And at midnight there was a cry made, [at the 
destruction of Jerusalem,] behold the bridegroom [at 
the destruction of Jerusalem] cometh, go ye out to meet 
him." And, by the way, who was the bridegroom ? 
Titus was the military leader there ; but I do not know 
whether my brother will say Titus was the bridegroom 
or not. But, again, " the door was shut" [at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem] against the foolish virgins. Will 
he tell us what that means ? and who these foolish vir- 
gins were ? Perhaps it is too late for us, since the door 
is shut ! 

Then at the 14th verse we have the parable of the 



MR. CARPENTER^ THIRD SPEECH. 277 

man traveling into a far country [at the destruction of 
Jerusalem, of course] and calling his own servants, and 
delivering unto them his goods, [at the destruction of 
Jerusalem] to one five talents, to another two, and to a 
third one talent. By- the way, I want to know who 
these servants were, and if the Jews were those w T ho re- 
ceived but the one talent. I think the brother will try 
to show, when he comes to the Rich Man and Lazarus, 
that they had several talents. And then in the 19th 
verse we read that " after a long time [at the destruction 
of Jerusalem, again,] the lord of those servants cometh 
and reckoneth with them." And this reckoning will 
not be denied to be the judgment in reference to these 
servants. But how is it ? Does it mean that, " after a 
long time [at the destruction of Jerusalem] the lord of 
those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them ? " You 
see the sense of the passage is destroyed by his applica- 
tion of the adverb " then " in Matthew 25th. But now 
at the time of this judgment there is to be a separation 
of the sheep from the goats. Was that at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, too ? That argument of his about 
there being some goat in me, I w T ill pass. Still some are 
sheep and some are goats, and these are to be separated. 
But now after this parable of the talents comes the lan- 
guage : " When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, 
and all the holy angels with him,THEN [here is an adverb 
my brother,] shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : 
and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall 
separate them as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
goats." Now I deny that this coming has yet transpired. 
I deny that he has come with " all the holy angels." I 
deny that " all nations " have been gathered before him. 
I again press upon my brother, w T ere ALL nations " at 
the destruction of Jerusalem ? " And if it was at that 
time, who were the "holy angels?" Were all " the holy 
angels " there ? I suppose they would not be very well 
represented by Titus' soldiery ! But we read in the 34th 



278 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

verse : " Then the king shall say unto them on his right 
hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father/' etc. " Then" — 
when ? My brother says at the time of the destruction 
of Jerusalem. And then, also, he says " These shall 
go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous 
into life eternal ! " Now to what does he apply this lan- 
guage in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem ? 
The truth is that that kind of an interpretation is mani- 
festly absurd, and will not bear even a superficial exam- 
ination. We have already shown that this coming is 
not until after the resurrection spoken of in 1 Cor. 15. 
Bro. Hughes will have to try his hand on that passage 
again. 

I will now resume my argument, which was left un- 
finished when the time of my last speech expired. You 
will remember we were speaking of 1 Cor. 15 : 21-28, 
and we were showing that the end of Christ's mediato- 
rial work will not be till after the resurrection, and that 
when this and the judgment are past, the special work 
of Christ will be finished and his authority surren- 
dered. Then chance for salvation will cease, for there 
will be no mediator. And we were showing that there 
would be some unsaved after the resurrection. And we 
quoted from Mr. Thayer, high Universalist authority, 
to show that he asserts that " the power of Christ to 
save continues beyond death ; continues, as Paul says, 
till the end cometh, and that this end cometh after the 
resurrection, and the destruction of all evil." 

Mr. Thayer continues : 

" He (the Father) delegates power to him (Christ) as the Saviour 
of all men, as he himself repeatedly testifies, and one special mani- 
festation of this power is seen in the raising of the dead. ' The Fa- 
ther loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. And 
this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all he hath giv- 
en me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.' 
(John 3 : 35 ; 6 : 39.) So then the saving power of Jesus over the 
soul is not limited to this world, nor is it surrendered at the death of 
the body. It has no limit but the resurrection in its completeness 
* * * and ' there shall be no more death, neither sorrow- 






ME. CAKPENTER/S THIRD SPEECH. 279 

ing nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the former 
things are passed away.' (Eev. 21 : 4.) " 

Let it be observed that Mr. Thayer, in his very at- 
tempt to prove a post-mortem gospel, acknowledges that 
the " coming " and the " end," spoken of in 1 Cor. 15, 
refers to a future act, at which time of the resurrection, 
Christ's mediatorial work will be " consummated." Let 
it be remembered, too, that he applies Rev. 21 : 4, John 
3 : 35, and John 6 : 37, to the future resurrection state. 
But in proof of our position that Christ, through his 
gospel, is the only means of salvation, we quote further 
from the same authority : 

" If it be asked, how is Christ to save men after death ? the an- 
swer is, by the same means, and in the same way, as before death, 
doubtless ; only increased in power and directness, and operating 
without the obstructions incident to the fleshly or earthly nature." 
p. 229. 

We call attention to these concessions of the learned 
editor: 1. That men in the future state need salvation. 
2. That Christ, as a mediator, or priest, is the only Sav- 
iour. 3. That the same means, if at all, must be used 
in the future life as here. We might ask here, Who 
will preach the gospel there ? What visiting the sick, 
feeding the hungry, (Matt. 25th), what pure and unde- 
fined religion, (James 1 : 27,) what ordinances of obedi- 
ence will there, be practiced ? 4. That this salvation 
must be prior to the resurrection, for at that time Christ 
will cease to be a Saviour. 5. That Rev. 21 : 4, John 
3 : 35, 36 ; 6 : 39, refer to the resurrection state. 

With these concessions, we proceed to prove their 
correctness by the very passages themselves, and numer- 
ous parallel passages. 

I read Rev. 21:4-8: 

" And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there 
shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall 
there be any more pain : for the former things are passed away. And 
he that sat upon the throne said, Behold I make all things new. 
And he said unto me, Write : for these words are true and faithful. 
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the be- 



280 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

ginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the 
fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall in- 
herit all things ; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable," and murder- 
ers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, 
shall have their part in the lake which burnetii with fire and brim- 
stone : which is the second death." 

Now, mark you, Mr. Thayer places this after the res- 
urrection, whatever that state may mean with him, after 
which our brother states we shall enter a final state, be- 
yond which there is nothing different. But in that state 
" the fearful and unbelieving," etc., are to have " their 
part in the lake which burnetii with fire and brimstone, 
(whatever that may be,) which is the second death." 
Mr. Thayer quotes the fourth verse, " And God shall 
wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be 
no more death," etc., and puts that after the resurrec- 
tion, in order to prove that Christ's power to save will 
be continued in the other world ; but the passage we 
have quoted comes afterwards, and shows that there will 
be some there who shall have their " part in the lake 
that burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is the sec- 
ond death." This is after the resurrection and judgment 
and the giving up of the kingdom by Christ. 

I read John 3 : 35. 36 : 

" The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his 
hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and he 
that believeth not the Son, shall not see life : but the wrath of God 
abideth on him." 

This, too, Mr. Thayer places beyond the resurrection, 
and at the delivering up of the mediatorial throne. But 
here are some who " shall not see life," and on whom 
the " wrath of God abideth." My brother may say, 
perhaps, he " hath everlasting life " here. If he takes 
that position, we shall be ready for him. "We admit that 
the Christian " hath everlasting life " here ; i. e. he hath 
it in prospect and reservation, and the earnest of it ; but 
the difficulty is, he may lose it before my brother's 
"final" state may come. 



MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD SPEECH. 281 

I quote again John 6 : 37-40 : 

"•All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me ; and him that 
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from 
heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which 
lie hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again 
at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that ev- 
ery one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have ever- 
lasting life : and I will raise him up at the last day." 

But then Judas, the son of perdition, was lost, and 
went "to his own place." (John 17 : 12.) 
Also 2 Peter 2 : 9, 10, 17 : 

" The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations 
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished : 
but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, 
and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed : they 
are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. * * These are 

wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom 
the mist of darkness is reserved forever." 

Observe now, " the Lord knoweth how to deliver the 
godly," etc., and " to reserve the ungodly unto the 
day of judgment to be punished." I wonder is 
punishment a Saviour ! And there are those to whom 
the " mist of darkness is reserved forever." 

I read 2 Peter 3: 3-16: 

" Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoff- 
ers walking after their own lusts. [Notice here that scoffers are to 
come.] And saying. Where is the promise of his coming ? for since 
the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the be- 
ginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, 
that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth 
standing out of the water and in the water : whereby the world that 
then was, being overflowed with water perished : but the heavens 
and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, re- 
served unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of un- 
godly men. [Here note that the heavens and the earth are to be 
burned.] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one 
day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as 
one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some 
men count slackness ; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing 
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But 
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, [will come, 
not has come,] in the which the heavens will pass away with a great 
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also 



282 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

and the works that are therein, shall be burned up. Seeing then 
that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons 
ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for 
and hastening unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the hea- 
vens being on tire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt 
with fervent heat ? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look 
for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 
"Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent 
that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless, 
and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation : even as 
our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him 
hath written unto you ; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of 
these things : [and so Paul in all his epistles spoke of these things ;] 
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that 
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scrip- 
tures, unto their own destruction." 

Now I say that " these things/' here described, are 
yet in the future ; that they have not occurred, and • 
that they could not possibly have been accomplished, 
according to my brother's theory, at the destruction of 
Jerusalem. 

I read Rev. 20 : 10-15 : 

" And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall 
be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great 
white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and 
the heaven fled away ; and there was found no place for them. And 
I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God : and the books 
were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life : 
and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in 
the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead 
which were in it : and death and hell delivered up the dead which 
were in them : and they were judged every man according to their 
works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is 
the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book 
of life was cast into the lake of fire." 

Now this "lake of fire," into which "death and hell," 
or hades, are to be cast, is the place "prepared for the 
devil and his angels," of Matt. 25 : 41-46, into which 
the wicked were to "depart." And so the 15th verse 
of this chapter says that " whosoever was not found 
written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of 
fire." And "death and hell," or hades, are to be 



283 

burned ; for the grave for the body, and hades for the 
spirit, will not be needed after the resurrection. For 
the use of the word u death " I refer to Isaiah 53 : 9, 
and Job 27 : 16. 

I now read 1 Thes. 4 : 14-17 : 

" For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them 
also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say 
unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and re- 
main unto .the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are 
asleep, for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, 
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God : and 
the dead in Christ shall rise first ; then we which are alive and re- 
main shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet 
the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 

Here we have the coming of Christ, the resurrec- 
tion, and the change of the living, who are " caught 
up together with them (the glorified saints) to meet 
the Lord in the air, and so," Paul says, " we shall be 
ever with the Lord." Now we read in Acts first 
that he went up in the clouds, and that he is to 
come again in like manner ; and here we are to meet 
him in the clouds. The descriptions agree. But did 
he come in that way at the destruction of Jerusalem ? 

I read Matt. 25 : 31-33 : 

" When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy 
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : and 
before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them 
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats : 
and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his 
left." 

So there is to be a separation at the judgment, and 
we have shown that that is to be in the future. But 
my brother wants me to show how I get " all nations" 
here to mean " all men ! " I would turn around and 
ask him what it means ? Yesterday he had " all na- 
tions" to include all men. Now what does the phrase 
mean here? 1 say it means all men, for we must "all 
stand before the judgment seat of Christ." And " all, 
small and great, must stand before God." But even 



284 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

in this case Enoch and Elijah, etc., may be excepted. 
But I read 1 Cor. 15 : 24-26 : 

" Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered np the king- 
dom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule 
and all authority and power, for he must reign till he hath put all 
enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is 
death." 

And Paul concurs in the above description of the 
judgment by Matthew, and notes the delivering up of 
the Kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may 
be all in all. 

I read again : 

" He that is unjust, let him be unjust still : and he which is filthy, 
let him be filthy still : and he that is righteous, let him be righteous 
still : and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Kev. 22 : 11. 

The Bevelator having viewed, as it were, a pano- 
rama of the whole scene, utters the above as express- 
ive of the final doom. My brother, however, will say 
that these were not men spoken of here. But by a 
reference to 1 John 3:8, " He that committeh sin is 
of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. 
For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that 
he might destroy the works of the devil," we find that 
" he that committeth sin is of the devil, " and Christ 
says (John 8 : 44) : " Ye are of your father the devil, 
and the lusts of your father ye will do." But. the Son 
of God " was manifested that he might destroy the 
works of the devil," and so it is the children of the devil 
who are to be destroyed. It is of men, therefore, the 
Revelator speaks here, when he says of their final 
condition : " He that is unjust, let him be unjust still," 
etc. 

We will now introduce an argument on the original 
words used in this controversy. 

If our Universalist friends are dissatisfied with the 
English, and appeal to the Hebrew olam, Greek aioni- 
os, aidios, etc., they will fare no better, but rather worse. 
Aionios occurs in the Greek New Testament seventy- 






MR. CARPENTER'S THIRD SPEECH. 285 

two times. In about sixty of these instances it refers 
to God, his attributes, and the life or reward he will 
give to the saints. In some six instances it refers to 
the punishment of the wicked. « The correctness of 
these statements may be easily verified by any one who 
will be at the trouble of running his eye over the oc- 
currences of the word as marked in a Greek Concord- 
ance. The very few doubtful, secondary, or appropri- 
ated uses of the word cannot invalidate the current 
and radical meaning. 

Aristotle, who was the teacher of Alexander the 
Great, and one of the ripest Greek scholars, lived 
about B. C. 384. He derives aion, from which the ad- 
jective aidnios is derived, from aiei, always, and on, the 
participial termination of eimi, to be ; hence, always be- 
ing, or being or existing without end of duration. Will 
any one say that Aristotle did not understand his own 
language ? His words are literally and critically trans- 
lated by Prof. Boise, Professor of Greek in Chicago 
University. His translation is as follows : 

" Time is a notation of motion, and motion without a physical 
body is impossible. But, beyond the heaven, it has been shown, 
there neither is a body, nor can there be. It is plain, therefore, that 
there is neither space, nor void, nor time beyond. Wherefore, the 
things there are not by nature in space, nor does time make them 
grow old, nor is there change in any one of these things placed be- 
yond the outermost sweep (or current) ; but unchangeable and with- 
out passion, having the best and most sufficient life, they continue 
through all eternity, (aion) for this name (i.e. aion) has been divine- 
ly uttered by the ancients. For the definite period, (to telos) which 
embraces the time of the life of each individual, to whom, accord- 
ing to nature, there can be nothing beyond, has been called each 
one's eternity (aion). And by parity of reasoning, the definite pe- 
riod, also, of the entire heaven, even the definite period embracing 
the infinite time of all things and infinity, is an eternity (aion) im- 
mortal and divine, having received the appellation, eternity, (aion) 
from the fact that it did exist always, (apo ton aei einai). 
Whence the other things also, both existence and life, have received 
the appellation eternal with more or less accuracy. For as in popu- 
lar philosophies concerning the divine, it is often made plain in the 
discussion, that the divine, as it is wholly first and highest, must 
necessarily be unchangeable, (so in this case with respect to the word 



286 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

awn) ; and this, being so, bears testimony to what I have said. For 
neither is another thing stronger and better because it will have mo- 
tion (for in that case that other thing would be more divine), nor 
has it anything base (on account of motion), nor is it deficient in 
any of those things which are honorable to it. And it is moved 
with a ceaseless motion for good reasons ; because all things cease to 
be moved when they arrive at their own place ; but to the body that 
moves in a circle, the place whence it started and where it termi- 
nates is the same." [Time expired.] 

ME. HUGHES 7 THIED EEJOINDEE. 

Messes. Moderators: — I do not want this audience 
to forget that Bro. Carpenter this forenoon took the po- 
sition that there is no way for men to be saved out 
hrough Christ ; he has repeated it again this afternoon, 
and has called in Dr. Thayer as a witness to that point. 
He has brought him to show that there is no salvation 
except through Christ. "Well, that is our doctrine, 
but his heathen friends will come in here once more. 
!Now the heathen are not saved in this world; they die 
in sin ; and death, my brother says, fixes the condition 
of men to all eternity ; and so the heathen are never to 
be saved, according to Bro. Carpenter, to all eternity ! 
They are not saved in this world, and there are no 
means by which they can be saved in the future world ; 
and so, according to the brother's theory, they are to 
be damned to all eternity ! Now why are they to be 
damned? Because, they have not accepted Christ. 
But Christ has not been offered to them ! They are 
therefore damned because they have not accepted a Sa- 
viour never offered to them ; because they have not be- 
lieved in a gospel never preached to them ! They go 
down to eternal misery for the want of an opportunity 
to be saved ! That is the position my brother places 
the Father of mercies in. He who is good to all, whose 
tender mercies are over all his works. His logic — and 
his system runs to that — makes God the author of the 
eternal perdition of the greater part of mankind, who 



ME. hughes' thied eejoindee. 287 

have no opportunity to be saved! But let him say the 
heathen are saved, or that a single soul of them is saved, 
and then he can not tell how they are saved. If they 
are saved, then according to his doctrine, they must be 
saved without Christ ; for they are not saved when they 
die, and he says there is no salvation through Christ 
beyond death ! But if they are saved u over there," 
then, on his position, they must be saved uncondition- 
ally, and so to this ruie,to which I have agreed, and for 
which he contends so strenuously, of conditional salva- 
tion through Christ, he makes many millions of excep- 
tions. These are a few of the "thickets" and " jun- 
gles," Bro. Carpenter, in which you are hiding. Now 
as you are not in favor of skulking, will you please 
come out ? Let us hear from you how you are going 
to have the heathen saved, or if they are to be saved at 
all. 

But he says, I misrepresented some of those doctors 
of divinity. I say, I have not. I simply repeated 
what they said, and nothing more. Neither have I 
misrepresented President Milligan, nor the Scriptures, 
and he can not show that I have. I am not in the 
practice of misrepresenting authors, or anybody else. 

Bro. Carpenter says, I asked him if he would be 
just as good a man in heaven as here, and he replied 
that he presumed he would ; that I then asked him, 
if he would not preach there. I did not. I asked 
him, if he should be as good a man in the future world as 
here, whether he would desire the salvation of all men 
in that world, as he said he longed for their salvation 
here ? I press that question now. I demand of him, 
whether, if he shall be as good a man in the future 
state, and he longs for the salvation of men there, he 
can be happy in heaven while he knows unnumbered 
millions of the race are unsaved, are in eternal tor- 
ments ? I ask him if there can be any heaven for hearts 



288 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

that feel, if even one soul shall be condemned to endless 
woe? 

But he inquires after that "commission" again ; and 
he says, he preaches under a commission here. Does 
he ? Where did he get it ? Who gave it to him ? I 
recall the apostles as having a commission. But I 
thought his people did not believe in any commission, or 
call to the ministry ! How is that, Bro. Carpenter ? I 
would like to know what he wants with a commission. 
If he is there as he is here, he will want no commis- 
sion, but the call of duty and the desire for the salva- 
tion of souls. 

He refers to the doctrine of total depravity. I 
thought he did not believe in total depravity. But he 
says, the devil is totally depraved, and is being pun- 
ished ; and so he does believe in total depravity. Will 
he give us the passage of Scripture that says, the devil 
is totally depraved, or is being punished? Will he 
tell us how the devil can be punished morally if there 
is no good in him ? Let us hear from you on that 
point, Bro. Carpenter. 

He refers to the Eich Man and Lazarus, and thinks 
we Universalists ought to touch lightly on that matter, 
as the Rich Man called for water, and did not get any. 
He thinks there is no water there, or not much at any 
rate. Well, if my brother is to baptize there — aud he 
is anxious about the ordinances — he will be forced to 
sprinkle, for there will not be water enough to immerse 
in, and that would not suit his folks very well. 

But it seems there was some good in the Rich Man, af- 
ter all. He does not seem to be totally depraved, for he 
had some feeling for his kindred, and prayed for them. 
Let the brother note that. So that shows, on his own 
admission, that there is some good, even in hell. 

He wants to know what "eternal" and " everlast- 
ing " mean in Matt. 25 : 46, and 2 Thes. 1:9. It is 
for him to tell what they mean, and to show that they 



289 

mean " endless" In a great many other passages 
they do not mean endless. Let him show, if he can, that 
they so mean here. He is not to shirk that responsi- 
bility. 

He says there are two comings spoken of in Matt. 16 : 
27, 28. A yet iutnre coming in verse 27, a past com- 
ing in verse 28. Now you will remember that the di- 
vision of the Bible into chapters and verses is a mod- 
ern thing ; and that originally the gospel of Matthew 
was connected together as one composition, without the 
breaks made by the division into chapters and verses. 
He will therefore predicate no argument on such divis- 
ion. Now he charges me with " scrapping " the Bi- 
ble, taking up a text here, another there, and using 
them out of their connection. But what does he do ? 
He takes two sentences uttered by the Saviour in one 
breath, tears them asunder, and thrusts between them 
an interval of eighteen hundred years, and for ought 
we know, ten thousand! Could assurance go further? 

We read : " For the Son of man shall come in the 
glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall 
reward every man according to his works." Now he 
says, that refers to a coming yet future. But the Sa- 
viour adds : " Verily I say unto you, there be some 
standing here which shall not taste of death, till they 
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." That, 
says the brother, is his coming at Pentecost ! I can not 
believe that the Saviour gave the inflection to the words 
" but" and " kingdom" that Bro. Carpenter did when 
he said : " .Blithe coming of the Son of man in his king- 
dom." By an ingenious use of circumflexes, he read some- 
thing into that passage that is not there. Now if I 
was to take two verses so clearly connected as these, 
and wrest them asunder with the violence that he has 
in the case under consideration, you would soon hear 
from him ; and I should consider myself obnoxious to 
the charge of scrapping the Bible ! 
19 



290 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

But I deny that there are two comings spoken of in 
these two verses ; and now to so fasten this matter, so 
that no man who hears this debate will dare to say in 
the face of the Scriptures, that there are two comings 
spoken of there, I will now show beyond controversy, 
that Christ's coming in his kingdom is his coming in 
judgment. I will first read from Isa. 9 : 6, 7 : 

" For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ; anyd the gov- 
ernment shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be called 
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, 
The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace 
there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his king- 
dom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice 
from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will 
perform this." 

Now there is no doubt at f|l that Christ is spoken of 
here. But please mark you, that the prophet speaks of 
the Saviour, of his government, of his kingdom, of how 
that kingdom should be established, that it should be 
established " with judgment and justice." Now 
then, the Saviour's coming in his kingdom is a past 
event, and as his kingdom was set up " with judgment 
and justice/ 7 so his coming in his kingdom is his com- 
ing in judgment, and there is but one coming spoken of 
in Matt. 16 : 27, 28. To this the prophet had refer- 
ence when he said : " He shall not fail, nor be discour- 
aged, till he have set judgment in the earth ; and the isles 
shall wait for his law." Isa. 42 : 4. 

Let me read also Jer. 23 : 5, 6 : 

" Behold, tlte days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto 
David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and 
shall execute judgment in the earth. In his days Judah shall be 
saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is his name whereby 
he shall be called, the lord our righteousness." 

This passage speaks of Christ's reign, of his being 
raised up as a " righteous Branch/' as having a kingdom 
in which he " shall execute "judgment and justice." 
But where is that to be ? The prophet says, " in the 
earth." The kingdom of Christ " established with 



THIED EEJOINDEE. 291 

judgment and justice," is the one in which Christ is to 
reign and execute judgment and justice. Can anything 
be more certain, then, than that his coming in his king- 
dom is his coming in judgment? 
I quote again : 

I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man 
came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, 
and they brought him near before him. And there was given him 
dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and 
languages, should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting do- 
minion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which 
shall not be destroyed." Dan. 7 : 13, 14. 

Here is a vision of the coming of Christ, " of the 
Son of man in the clouds of heaven." It is what is 
called by our friends, " Christ's second coming," his 
coming in judgment. It is his coming in judgment, 
but not his last coming at the close of his reign. For 
at this coming he receives his kingdom. Daniel says, 
when he saw him coming in the clouds of heaven, there 
was given him " a dominion, a glory, and a kingdom." 
Christ's coming in his kingdom, then, is his coming in 
judgment. 

In 2 Tim. 4: 1, we read again : 

" I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, 
who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his 
kingdom." 

Here again we have a coming of Christ in Ms king- 
dom spoken of. But what does he do " at his appearing 
and kingdom f" The apostle says: " He judges the 
quick and the dead" that is, the living and the dead. 
"What becomes then of the invention to break the force 
of Matt. 16: 27, 28? I must be permitted to say, 
that it is utterly demolished. Paul puts these two 
comings of the brother together, and makes them one 
coming. They are married together in the word of 
the Lord; and "what God hath joined together, let 
not " my brother, even dare to attempt to put asun- 
der. 



292 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

In connection with verse 27, Bro Carpenter quotes 
verses 25 and 26, making "lose- his life" and " lose 
his soul/ 7 mean the loss of eternal life in the future 
state. But this makes the Saviour use the word " life " 
in two senses, life temporal, and life eternal ; for it 
would not do to say, " whosoever shall lose his eternal 
life shall save it." The simple meaning of these pas- 
sages is, that whosoever seeks to save his life by for- 
saking the gospel, shall lose it ; but he that in loyalty 
to the truth puts his life in jeopardy, should in the 
temporal calamities coming on that generation, save it. 
See Luke 17 : 33-37. The word psuche, here rendered 
" life," and " soul," should have been uniformly " life" 
in both verses. Says Dr. Clarke : 

" On what authority many have translated the word psuche, in the 
25th verse, life, and in this verse soul, I know not ; but am certain it 
means life in both places. If a man should gain the whole world, its 
riches, honors, and pleasures, and lose his life, what would it profit 
him, seeing they can only be enjoyed in this life." 

As to Acts 1 : 11, which refers to Christ's coming in 
" like manner " as he ascended, I am free to admit it re- 
fers to Christ's last coming, to his coming at the end of 
his reign. In 1 Thes. 4 : 13-18, we have a future com- 
ing. So also, in 1 Cor. 15: 21-28. But none of these 
passages speak of a judgment, or make the most dis- 
tant allusion to one. At his last coming Christ deliv- 
ers up his kingdom, resigns all authority, and is no 
longer judge. All occasion for judgment has ceased 
forever, for all enemies are destroyed, all men are sub- 
dued to Christ, and God is all in all. The congrega- 
tion will remember the argument on that subject, and 
you will recall it if the brother slurs it off in this dis- 
cussion. 

He tries to make something out of what I said in re- 
lation to the word " then," in Matt. 25 : 1. Now what 
did I say about that? He said he would admit that 
Matt. 24th applied to the destruction of Jerusalem. I 
then said that the 25th chapter began with the word 



MR. HUGHES' THIRD REJOINDER. 293 

* then," and that it was an adverb of time, and that it 
referred to the time spoken of in the previous chapter, 
thereby fixing the time of the events spoken of in the 
25th chapter. He seemed to understand me to make 
it an adverb of place, and proceeded to substitute, as he 
said, the definition for the word, and to interject the 
phrase " destruction of Jerusalem " in the passages 
where the adverb occurs. But I did not say it referred 
to the destruction of Jerusalem as the place of the ful- 
fillment of these things, but to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem as the time of their fulfillment. It was at that 
time that there was a full establishment of Christ's 
kingdom, and then it was that " the kingdom of heaven 
was likened unto ten virgins," etc. Now I ask him if 
the word " then" the first word in the 25th of Matthew, 
does not refer to the time of fulfillment of the things 
spoken of in the 24th, and if that time, by his own ad- 
mission, is the destruction of Jerusalem, whether it does 
not fix the time of the events in the 25th chapter in 
the past! Let him get it away from there now, if he 
can. This helps to a right understanding of the word 
everlasting, as applied to punishment. Does it mean 
endless ; so that we have future endless punishment in 
the phrase " everlasting punishment?" I say no; 
because it is temporal punishment, belonging to this life 
and state. 

He admits that there is a little goat in him, and says 
he can not refute that argument. I thought he exhib- 
ited the spirit of the goat, when he personated the Sav- 
iour as treading and stamping (showing by action) 
upon men. He certainly exhibited the spirit of the 
goat then. 

He says when Christ shall come, he will be attended 
by all his "holy angels;" and he wants to know if the 
Saviour ever did come in that way ! I would say to 
him that the word "holy " is not in the original in 
Matt. 25 : 31. Will he please note that fact ? Just 



294 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

here also, I wish to call my brother's attention to the 
views of Alexander Campbell, as to the coming of 
Christ in his kingdom. Bro. Carpenter wants to know 
who ever heard of the setting up of the kingdom at the 
destruction of Jerusalem ? Mr. Campbell teaches that 
the kingdom of God was not fully set up until the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, and at that time there was a 
coming of Christ. He says : 

" But, as the erection of the Jewish tabernacle, after the com- 
mencement of the first kingdom of God, was the work of some time, 
and of united and combined effort on the part of those raised up and 
qualified for the work ; so was the complete erection of the new temple of 
God. The apostles as wise master-builders, laid the foundation — pro- 
mulged the constitution, laws, and institutions of the King, and 
raised the standard of the kingdom in manytowns, cities, and coun- 
tries, for the space of forty years. Some of them not only saw ' the Son 
of man enter upon his reign,' and the kingdom of God commence on 
Pentecost, and carry his conquests over Judea, Samaria, and the ut- 
termost parts of the earth ; but they saiu tJie Lord ' come with power and 
awful glory? and accomplish all his predictions on the deserted and 
devoted temple. Thus they saw a bright display of the golden scep- 
ter of his grace in forgiving those who bowed to his authority, and 
an appalling exhibition of the iron rod of his wrath in taking venge- 
ance on his enemies who would not have him to reign over them." — 
Christian System, page 171. 

The brother quoted Acts 1:11, about the Saviour's 
coming in like manner as he went up into heaven ; and 
he wants to know whether that has ever been fulfilled. 
I answer, frankly, no. But he wants to know whether 
he has ever come in the clouds of heaven, with his holy 
angels, and when it was ; whether at the Mount of 
Transfiguration, at Pentecost, or when ? I answer, at 
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Let him read 
Matt. 24: 29-34 for proof. And Mr. Campbell says 
it was at the destruction of Jerusalem ; and he says also 
that angels were employed in setting up the kingdom, 
so that there was a coming of Christ with his angels 
then also. I quote again from Mr. Campbell : 

" Besides these, many persons possessed of miraculous powers- 
gifts of healing, and speaking foreign languages — were employed in 
setting up and putting in order the communities comprising the 



295 

kingdom of heaven. Angels also were employed, and are still employed 
under the great King, in administering to those who are heirs of sal- 
vation. For Jesus, as Lord of all, has the Holy Spirit at his dispos- 
al, and all the angels of God ; and these are employed by him in the 
affairs of his kingdom." — Christian System, page 172. 

Now Mr. Campbell teaches most clearly that the 
kingdom was not fully set up till the time of the de- 
struction of Jerusalem ; and he says angels were em- 
ployed in setting it up. I would like to know, there- 
fore, if there was not a coming of the angels with him 
in the same sense that he came in his kingdom ? I 
would press the question also, that if Christ came at 
the destruction of Jerusalem, as Mr. Campbell admits, 
whether that was not his coming in his kingdom. Mr. 
Carpenter may settle that matter with Bro. Campbell 
himself. Mr. Campbell, you know, is in a sense the 
head of his church, and ought to have some authority 
over Bro. Carpenter. 

He quotes from Dr. Thayer to prove that the work 
of salvation will be complete at the resurrection. Now 
I believe what Mr. Thayer says, and I admit that 
Christ's work will be done when he shall give up the 
kingdom. But there will be none unsaved at that 
time. But Dr. Thayer gays that the power of Christ 
to save continues after death. Does my brother en- 
dorse that doctrine ? That is what Mr. Thayer says, 
and he is his witness. 

My opponent says, punishment is not a Saviour. 
Very well, I have never said it was. Christ is the Sav- 
iour, and he uses the truth as the instrumentality by 
which he saves men. He says : " I am the way, the 
truth, and the life." John 14 : 6. There is a way also 
by which we are saved by the blood of Christ. Not, 
however, in a material application of his blood, but by 
believing the truth, and the sealing of the Spirit. Pun- 
ishment is a means of instruction and reformation. It 
teaches men through want and suffering, as the Prodi- 
gal was taught, when he went away from his father's 



296 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

house into beggary, want, and wretchedness. I say, it 
is the discipline by which the Father would bring us to 
something higher, better, and nobler than we have yet 
known. 

Eev. 21 : 8, where it says, that " the fearful and 
unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and 
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all 
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth 
with fire and brimstone, which is the second death," 
he says, Dr. Thayer applies to the resurrection state. 
He misapprehends Mr. Thayer's views there. You 
will observe that there is in Rev. 20 : 11-15, a setting 
up of Christ's throne, as in Matt. 25th. It refers to the 
commencement of Christ's reign, and the setting up of 
his mediatorial throne ; and he now sits upon that 
throne, and all nations are before him in their total- 
ity, and will be before him as long as he continues to 
reign, and so long will he continue to judge by his 
truth and his word. It is carried forward, this judging 
in his kingdom, unto the great consummation, and then 
there is to be " no more death, neither sorrow nor cry- 
ing, neither shall there be any more pain." That is the 
completion of Christ's work. But when the Revelator 
speaks of what shall be during the period of Christ's 
reign and judgment, he says there are those that are 
suffering, those that are punished, which he describes 
under the figures of fire and brimstone. Bat when 
Christ's work is consummated, there will be no more 
sorrow, pain, nor death, for the former things shall have 
passed away. These I understand to be Mr. Thayer's 
views, and they are mine. But where will my broth- 
er's lake of fire be, when there is no sorrow, nor crying, 
nor pain, nor death ? 

He quotes John 3 : 36 : " He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting live ; and he that believeth not 
the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of God 
abideth on him." Now he says, the believer hath ev- 






MR. HUGHES' THIRD REJOINDER. 297 

erlasting life here, and we agree upon that. But the 
wrath is here also ; for it says cf him that believeth 
not, " the wrath of God abideth on him." The 
wrath of God is upon the unbeliever here, then. " The 
wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all un- 
godliness and unrighteousness of men." Eom. 1 : 18. 
" For because of these things eometh the wrath of God 
upon the children of disobedience." Eph. 5: 6. The 
" wrath of God" is the " everlasting punishment" of 
Matt. 25: 46. There is " everlasting punishment," 
then, in this world, and every unbeliever is suffering 
it, if the word of God is true. But Bro. Carpenter says 
a man may have everlasting life here, and yet he may 
fall away and lose it. He may, may he ? So I say a 
man may believe, and repent, and come out from un- 
der the everlasting punishment, and his punishment 
cease forever. So I have found the end of everlasting 
in my brother's own text. 
He refers to 2 Peter, 2:9: 

" The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, 
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 

I will say to him, that if he will look at this passage 
critically, he will find that it reads in this way : " And 
to reserve the unjust to a day of judgment to be pun- 
ished," in the original, there is no article before the 
phrase "day of judgment;" and Mr. Fisk, in his 
Greek grammar, says, where there is no article ex- 
pressed, the indefinite article " a," or " an," is under- 
stood. So we have it here — "the unjust are reserved 
to a day of judgment to be punished," which is true; 
for Christ " executes judgment and justice in the earth ;" 
and there are many days of judgment, or punishment. 
The antediluvians were reserved for one hundred and 
twenty years for judgment in the flood of waters in 
which they met their end. 

He quoted again from Kev. 20th, about the devil that 
deceived them being cast into the lake of fire and brim- 



298 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

stone, where the beast and the false prophet are, to be 
tormented day and night, forever and ever. Now if he 
will only read, he will find that the devil spoken of here 
is a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, 
and the tremendous sweep of tail, that drew the third 
part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. 
(Rev. 12 : 3, 4.) But was this dragon a person, or a 
power f I will assume that it was the symbol of a 
religious power ; which I believe is the general opinion 
of commentators; and casting it into a lake of fire 
symbolizes its destruction. But how could a religious 
or civil power be cast into a literal lake of fire and 
brimstone ? But he says, the lake of fire and brimstone is 
not literal, but an emblem of future terrible punishment, 
a hell of conscience. He also says that death and hades, 
the place of departed spirits, also were cast into the lake 
of fire. But if the lake of fire and brimstone is an em- 
blem of future punishment, a hell of conscience, will 
he tell us how this religious power, and death, and 
hades are to be cast into a hell of conscience? He might 
give us some useful information here. 

He refers to aidnios, and when he completes his ar- 
gument on the original words of duration, I will at- 
tend to that. 

He introduces Rev. 22 : 11 : 

" He that is unjust, let him be unjust still ; and he which is filthy, 
let him be filthy still ; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous 
still ; and he that is holy, let him be holy still." 

But you will notice that in the preceding verse, it is 
said : , 

" And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this 
book : for the time is at hand." 

This passage, therefore, refers to some time about 
to be in its incipiency — that was soon to commence in 
its fulfillment. And the 12th verse, the one immedi- 
ately succeeding the one quoted by Bro. Carpenter, adds 



ME. CARPENTER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 299 

an important item to a right understanding of this 
whole matter; 

" And behold, / come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give 
every man according as his work shall be." 

This passage refers to a time now past, and not to a 
time beyond the resurrection, and is therefore of no 
value to my brother's argument. [Time expired.] 

ME. CAEPENTEE'S FOUETH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — My brother seems to 
have a faculty of putting words into my mouth that I 
did not use. He says again that I admitted that Matt. 
24th applies wholly to the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Well, the report will show what I did say, and I am 
willing for that to stand for you to examine for your- 
selves. Does my brother's only hope of sustaining 
himself hang upon this false issue ? 

He says there is no article in the original, in the 
phrase in 2 Peter 2 : 9, and that in the absence of the 
definite article in the Greek, we are to understand it 
as indefinite, and so to read "a day of judgment," and 
not " the day of judgment." Well, suppose that is so, 
which is not always true, but it makes no difference in 
the argument. Then the Lord knoweth how to " re- 
serve the wicked unto a day of judgment to be pun- 
ished." Does the brother believe really in " a day of 
judgment?" Does he believe, in any proper sense of 
the word, in any judgment at all? How is that, bro- 
ther Hughes ? 

He refers to the two comings of Christ in Matthew, 
and well nigh concedes what I was trying to prove, 
that there is to be a future coming of Christ. He has 
admitted that Christ is to come, though not to judg- 
ment, and so we are that near each other at any rate. 
But brother Hughes is not satisfied with the received 
translation of Matt. 16 : 25, 26, in reference to a man's 



300 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

gaining or losing his life, and quotes Clarke upon the 
passage. In reply we simply have to say that the point 
at issue is not whether psuche should be rendered life 
or soul in the passage, but whether the same life is re- 
ferred to in each instance. A little reflection will show 
the absurdity into which he plunges. He would make 
the Saviour promise his disciples that if they would only 
be willing to be killed for his sake, they should not be 
killed. That is about equivalent to the old Calvinistic 
notion ot which he complains that a man must be will- 
ing to be lost before he can be saved ! But what are 
the facts in the case ? Did not all the apostles suffer 
martyrdom? Did not a majority of the seventy, and 
other early and leading disciples share their fate? Did 
not Stephen and thousands of other saints suffer at a 
very early date ? But who of those that saved their 
lives D3 r refusing to acknowledge Christ suffered vio- 
lent death ? Perhaps he will refer us to those who fell 
at Jerusalem. Well, the destruction of Jerusalem is 
his scape-goat for almost every Bible threatening. But 
the destruction was a little more than forty years from 
this time of this address. Those old enough at the 
time of this utterance to take an active part in these 
matters would be about old enough to die by the time 
Jerusalem was destroyed ! But the absurdity of my 
opponent's position is sufficiently apparent. He would 
better accept the truth that the Saviour promised eter- 
nal life to those who would suffer martyrdom for his 
sake. 

He quotes from Alexander Campbell, as though he 
taught the setting up of the kingdom of Christ was at 
the destruction of Jerusalem, when it is well known he 
distinctly taught that it was set up at the Pentecost, 
perhaps about A. D. 33. Now he quotes him as teach- 
ing the setting up of the kingdom and the second com- 
ing of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem about A. 



MR. CARPENTER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 301 

D. 70. Now brother Campbell never said any such 
thing as that. Bro. Campbell said : 

" The apostles, as wise master-builders, laid the foundation, pro- 
mulgated the laws and institutions of the King, and raised the stan- 
dard of the kingdom in many cities, towns, and countries for the 
space of forty years. Some of them not only saw the Son of man 
enter upon his reign, and the kingdom of God commence at Pente- 
cost, and carry his conquests over Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost 
part of the earth, but they saw the Lord come in power and great 
glory, and accomplish all his predictions on the deserted and de- 
yoted temple," etc. 

That is, he came to carry out his threatenings on 
the Jews. But where is there a word about his second 
coming, as described in the Scriptures, to judge the 
world, at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Mr. Camp- 
bell never endorsed such an idea as that. I freely ad- 
mit, with brother Campbell, that it was the apostles' 
work, during their lifetime, to complete the canon of 
revelation, and so far as relates to the introducing of 
members into the kingdom, the work is still going on, 
and will only close at Christ's second coming and the 
resurrection. But this is not what my brother said, 
that the kingdom was "set up " at the destruction of 
Jerusalem. 

He says there is to be no judging when Christ shall 
come again and surrender the kingdom. Bat I have 
quoted pasfages here to show that there will be ; that 
the dead will be raised, and tjie dead, small and great, 
will stand before God, and that he will surrender the 
kingdom after the judgment. And he has not dis- 
proved the application of these passages to a future 
coming of Christ and future judgment, and he cannot. 
But he makes a jingle on the word "judgment," where 
the word has a different signification from the special 
meaning in reference to the general judgment, in Isa. 
9 : 6, 7, and kindred passages. You remember I cau- 
tioned you to notice the passages he produced, that you 
would find many of them having no relation to the 
question in dispute. Now these passages I admit, in 



302 SECOND PEC-POSITION. 

their proper sense, as referring to the justness of 
Christ's administration, etc. ; but these terms, "justice 
and judgment," as used in these passages, do not refer 
to the judgment of the last day. They, therefore, do 
not help my brother at all, and this he certainly knows. 
It is simply a play upon words. 

He says the Rich Man was not totally depraved, for 
in hell he had some feeling for his friends, and prayed 
for them. Yes, I know he prayed for them, but was 
the prayer answered? Was there any promise that his 
prayer should be answered there ? I think not. I am 
afraid that those who, under my brother's preaching, 
are putting off praying till they get to the other world, 
will fare no better than the Rich Man did, whose pray- 
er was refused because it was too late. So you see 
any moral good the wicked may have in them after 
death will avail them nothing, not even to the securing 
a drop of water for their parched tongues. 

But my opponent pretends to think we don't be- 
lieve in a "commission to preach! " Now he ought 
to know better than that. He certainly can distinguish 
between a direct, miraculous "call" and the Great 
Commission under which we all profess to preach. I 
can but think that on this subject, as well as those of 
the judgment, and Matt. 16: 27, 28, like the scuttle- 
fish, he is trying to darken the waters until he can es- 
cape. He certainly knows that we profess to preach 
by the authority of Christ's commission, and that there 
are distinct periods — distinct utterances in Matt. 16 : 
27, 28, and that Christ, in a sense, judged while on 
earth, aud before the destruction of Jerusalem, quite 
as much as after, but not in the sense of the judgment, 
which we have conclusively proved is yet future. Come, 
brother Hughes, be done with these subterfuges, and 
meet the issue fairly. 

He wants to get me out from my proposition to dis- 
cuss the heathen. He does not want really to get out 



ME. CARPENTER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 303 

of the jungles, as he says, but into them. He wants 
to take something outside of the question, and waste 
our time on that. He thinks if he can get me off the 
question it will be easier for him. Now, if the hea- 
then who never heard of the gospel, die in " willful" 
disobedience to the gospel, then they are in the ques- 
tion. But as they do not, there is no use of our- talk- 
ing about them, unless my brother wants to turn hea- 
then, and desires to plead his own case here ! I have 
not said that no one will be saved except by the preach- 
ing of the gospel ; but that those to whom it is brought 
shall be judged by it. Our position respecting the 
salvation of infants and others is so well known that 
none will be led astray by my opponent's ad captan- 
dum. 

I will return now to my argument. I was discussing 
the definition of axon. That aion came to mean eter- 
nity before the time of Christ is shown from the fol- 
lowing fact. I quote from Charles H. Eeed, Esq., on 
the word aionios: 

"A translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into the 
Greek was made at Alexandria in the centuries just preceding the 
Christian era, by seventy learned Jews, and is known as the Septua- 
gint (seventy's) version. In the 15th verse of the 57th chapter of 
Isaiah, the common version reads thus : ; For thus saith the High 
and Lofty one that inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy.' The Sep- 
tuagint renders eternity there by ton aiona, aiona being the accusative 
case of aion. This conclusively shows that Jews who understood 
Greek, just before the Christian era, considered that aion was the 
proper and correct Greek word to express eternity. Is not this an 
unanswerable argument that aion came to signify eternity just before 
the advent of Christ?" 

Mr. Edward Beecher claims that Plato and Aristotle 
introduced the idea of eternity into aion, and through 
them it entered the Septuagint, Plato, etc. If so, it 
fixed the Bible use of the woid. Again, other words 
are not used as Greek words of duration. Mr. Eeed 
says: 

" Mr. Hanson, referring to several other Greek words, says : 



304 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

1 These words are not used in the New Testament to denote the dura- 
tion of the life of mankind after death: The noun timoria is used 
only in Heb. 10 :'29, when it is translated punishment. It is derived 
from timoreo, and originally signified help, aid, succor, and afterward 
came to signify revenge, vengeance, and then punishment, torture. See 
Liddell and Scott, et al. 

The Greek noun kolasis signifies punishment, and is the word used 
in Matt. 25 : 46. It is from kolazo. Sophocles says kolasis signifies 
' damnation in hell,' and that it ' equals gehenna, the place where the 
wicked are damned. He defines kolazo ' to damn in hell.' See his 
Greek Lexicon of the Eoman and Byzantine periods, from B. C. 146 
to A. D. 1100. He is a native Greek, and ought certainly to know 
the correct meaning of these words. * * * Kolaz o orig 

inally signified to curtail, prune, check, etc. Mr. Hanson says, I am- 
certainly ' overborne by the lexicographers.' Let us see. He cites 
four, and only four. One of these, Parkhurst, gives eternity as one 
of the meanings of aion, as Mr. H. quotes him. Donnegan, whom 
lie cites, gives eternity as one of the significations. But he failed to 
give this meaning from Donnegan. I suppose he had a good reason 
for omitting this definition. This leaves but two, and one of them, 
Phanonius, admits that aion, according to the theologians, signifies 
life, eternal and endless. The following lexicographers, (all of whom 
are of unquestioned scholarship and authority,) give eternity as one 
of the meanings of aion, viz : Liddell and Scott, Cremer, Donnegan, 
Pickering, Eobinson ; and Sophocles (above cited) gives forever, for- 
ever and ever, phrases equivalent to eternity. Yonge, in his English- 
Greek Lexicon, gives aion as the Greek word for eternity. He also 
gives aidios, but places aion first. These lexicographers are ex- 
perts, and are considered authority by all genuine scholars." [From 
letter of Prof. Eeed, in Chicago Tribune, dated April 28, 1873.] 

President Milligan agrees perfectly with what we 
have introduced, when he says, (Reason and Revela- 
tion, p. 313) : " They, (olam and aionios) are always 
perfectly exhaustive of the entire period or cycle to 
which they were applied. " Greenfield, whose Lexicon 
is designed for the New Testament only, defines aioni- 
os (from aion-' — from aeiand on), "unlimited as to dura- 
tion, eternal, everlasting" Donnegan renders it, "An ad- 
jective of long duration, eternal." Robinson, " Ever- 
enduring, perpetual, everlasting." Liddell and Scott, 
" Lasting, eternal." Pickering, "Long duration, ev- 
erlasting, eternal, perpetual, life-time." Bullions, 
" Permanent, enduring, eternal." Prof. Sophocles (a 
native modern Greek) gives " everlasting, eternal," as 



ME. CARPENTER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 305 

the only meanings ; and we know of no respectable 
lexicographer but what agrees with these. And not on- 
ly do the lexicographers agree with me here, but so also 
do the commentators, critics, and translators. Now it 
cannot be denied that even the noun aion does some- 
times, at least, have the idea of infinite, eternal, or 
without end. This being true, the adjective aionios can 
properly derive its meaning of endlessness from the 
noun, and fairly remain in the periphery of its use. 
Now this word aionios occurs in the New Testament 
seventy-two times, and we challenge any one to specify 
an instance from all these in which the word is used in a 
limited signification in the sense of restoration, or a ces- 
sation of the thing represented. Let my opponent try it, 
if he wishes. . Are we referred to Romans 16 : 25 ; 2 
Tim. 1:9; Titus 1 : 2, let it be remembered that pro 
kronon aionion, translated " world began," etc., simply 
refers to the eternity past — -from the eternal time. So 
Jude 7. The case is that of the cities of the plain 
" suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." This is 
probably the best showing that the New Testament af- 
fords to our opponents; but till they can show that 
the destruction has been removed and the cities re- 
stored, it can avail them nothing. We, therefore, re- 
peat our challenge for a New Testament example of 
aionios used to denote limited duration in a sense that 
removes the infliction or condition. Unless our chal- 
lenge can be fairly met, it is not necessary that we 
should spend time upon aion, aidios, adialeiptos, timo- 
reo, etc. ; but for the sake of the usual order, we will 
add a few words on these. Aion may sometimes be 
used in a limited sense, but still exhaustive of the period 
to which it refers ; but the phrase eis aion (eis ton aiona) 
— the accusative preceded by the preposition — is never 
so used in the New Testament, though the phrase occurs 
about a dozen times, some of which occurrences w T e may 
introduce in the course of this debate. 
20 



306 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Upon the statement made, we plant ourselves ; let 
Universalists dislodge us if they can. 

Again, the compound, or duplicated form, (eis tons 
aidnos, ton aidnion, etc.,) singular or plural, occurs in the 
New Testament twenty-two times ; thirteen times refer- 
ring to God, four times to Christ, once to both, once to 
the saints. Let one of these be pointed out that signifies 
limited duration, if it can be done. Robinson says : 
" With eis it ahvays implies duration without end." He 
gives as examples of its application to the punishment of 
the wicked. 2 Peter 2:17; Jude 13. Donnegan defines 
eis ton aiona, " to eternity." The distinguished scholar, 
Cremer, in his Biblical Greek Lexicon, gives as the orig- 
nal meaning of aion, "the life which hastes away in the 
breathing of our breath ; " life as transitory ; " then 
" the course of life;" in general, "life in its temporal 
form." He also says it is a suitable expression for "his- 
torical time," and for " eternity." Prof. Sophocles, a 
native Greek, and the very highest authority, in his 
Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods — from 
B. C. 146 to A. D. 1100— defines it, first, "age," like 
the Latin cevum ; second, "time without end," "forev- 
er," " forever and ever ; " third, " ever-existing ; " 
fourth, " world," — a Hebraism ; fifth, " age ; " sixth, 
" divine entity." In some of the definitions thus given 
by Prof. Sophocles are combinations with Greek prepo- 
sitions which are found in the New Testament and else- 
where. 

The foregoing are unquestionably the correct defini- 
tions of aion. Therefore it may be admitted that the 
original meaning of aion was " life," as stated by Dr. 
Edward Beecher. But this by no means disproves that 
it may express " eternity," or the whole of any period 
of existence. Dr. Edward Beecher, who, in the Chris- 
tian Union of Sept. 10, 1873, attacks Aristotle's defini- 
tion of aion (from aei and on — " always being,") claim- 
ing that it is derived from aon } to be, as " life," or " life- 



ME. CAEPENTEE's FOUETH SPEECH. 307 

age" still admits (Feb. 18, 1874) that it means "always, 
ever, continually." That Plato, and other Greeks, used 
it to express "eternity," will not be questioned. [See 
New Covenant, April 30, 1873.] The same challenge we 
have made above, may be made for the Hebrew olam, 
when duplicated leolam. 

III. The Anathema to be peonounced when 
Christ comes. 

I read 1 Cor. 16 : 22 : 

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathe- 
ma maran-atha." 

Translated, anathema, Greek, maran-atha, Syriac — 
" accursed, the Lord coming, or when the Lord comes." 
This cursing cannot be national, for it reads, " If any 
man," etc. The Jews had three words of execration — 
Niddui, a temporary suspension; cherem, a conditional 
suspension ; and anathema, (shammatha, Heb., Clarke,) 
which meant an "irrevocable," "irredeemable ' sen- 
tence, without any hope of redemption. For this defi- 
nition, see Smith's Biblical Dictionary, Kitto's Cyclope- 
dia, Chamber's Encyclopaedia, Clarke, Barnes, Crab be, 
McKnight, Webster, Worcester, the Greek Lexicons, etc. 
True, Lightfoot and a few others speak indifferently of 
the phrase, but its meaning is as well fixed as that of any 
Scripture. Even Paige and Cobb make no scholarly or au- 
thoritative attack upon it. See in loco. I call special 
attention to this argument, that here is a. cursing that is 
to transpire when the Lord comes. And if those Jews 
were cursed at the time of the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, or at any other time, they are cursed with an 
anathema that is to have no redemption, and not to be 
executed until the Lord comes. 

IV. The Unpaedonable Sin. 
I read Matt. 12: 31,32. 

" Wherefore say I unto 7011, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall 
be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 



308 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word 
against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever 
speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, nei- 
ther in this world, neither in the world to come." 

And here I remark that whatever differences there 
may be among the learned as tfo the minnte application 
of this and the following Scriptures, there is a very gen- 
eral harmony among them as to the point I make, viz : 
that they speak of a sin that is never to be forgiven. 

I quote next Mark 3 : 28, 29 : 

"Verily I say unto you, " All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons 
of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme : 
but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never for- 
givness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." 

Also 1 John 5:16: 

" If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he 
shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. 
There is a sin unto death : I do not say that he shall pray for it." 

Also Heb. 6:4-8: 

" For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, 
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of 
the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the 
powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them 
again unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the son of 
God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which 
drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth 
herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from 
God : but that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and 13 
nigh unto cursing ; whose end is to be burned." 

Now if in Matt. 12 : 32, aioni be rendered age, instead 
of world, as Paige, Cobb, etc., do, it matters not ; for 
what chance of forgiveness is there beyond the Jewish 
and Christian " ages ? " 

Whatever the death of John 5 : 16 may be, it cannot 
be escaped, for the sin is unpardonable. Nor will it do 
to say that they cannot be forgiven while they continue 
thus to sin or blaspheme, as this would be as true of any 
other sin as this ; hence such an interpretation destroys 
the whole force of the passage. The passage in Heb. 6, 
represents certain persons in a condition in which "it is 



MR. CARPENTER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 309 

impossible to renew them j but like dead and dried 
branches, without any vitality, or possibility of growth, 
are ready to be burned. But Universalists undertake to 
do the " impossible " often, although they do not suc- 
ceed very well ! These passages fully sustain the propo- 
sition I am maintaining. 

Y. The Great Salvation. 
I quote Heb. 2:1-3: 

" Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things 
which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For 
if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression 
and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall 
we escape, if we neglect so great salvation : which at the first began 
to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that 
heard him." 

And Heb. 10 : 26-31 : 

" For if we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowl- 
edge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a 
certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which 
shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law, died 
without mercy under two or three witnesses : of how much sorer 
punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trod- 
den under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the 
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath 
done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath 
said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the 
Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful 
thing to fall into the hands of the living God." 

Now, by " the word spoken by angels," Paul refers to 
the Law of Moses. [See Acts 7 : 33 ; G'al, 3 : 19.] But 
in Heb. 5 : 9, this " great salvation " is called an " eter- 
nal salvation." " And being made perfect, he became 
the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey 
him." But if the salvation be " eternal," the danger 
from which it saves must be " eternal " also. The pen- 
alty of the law was just, though it was " death without 
mercy." Now if that was justice for the infraction of 
that temporal law, what would be just for the infraction, 
in this terrible sense, of the spiritual law of Christ, un- 
less it be the " second death," " from which there is no 



310 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

resurrection ? " This is a " more sore punishment " in- 
deed. But in what do Universalists find a " great sal- 
vation ? " Mind, not numerous ones saved, but a "great 
salvation." I tell you it is not in their system. An in- 
finite salvation is only true where there is infinite 

DANGER. 

VI. The Kioh Man and Lazarus. 

" There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and 
fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. And there was a cer- 
tain beggar, named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 
and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's 
table : moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came 
to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into 
Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried : and 
in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments,and seeth Abraham afar 
off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried, and said, -Father Abra- 
ham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip 
of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in 
this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy life 
time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things : 
but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And besides all 
this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they which 
would pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they pass to us, 
that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee, therefore, 
father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have 
five brethren, that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into 
this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses 
and the prophets ; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father 
Abraham, but if one went unto them from the dead, they will re- 
pent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the proph- 
ets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.' 
Luke 16 : 19-31 : 

Now it matters little to us whether this be regarded 
as a history or a parable. If the latter, be it remembered 
Christ never taught by false metaphors nor fables. His 
parables were all based on probable realities. There 
were vines, sheep-folds, sweep-nets, good Samaritans, 
pieces of silver, prodigals, etc., else he had not used them 
in his teachings. The fable of Jotham's trees (Judges 
9 : 7-15) is not at all parallel with them. Let a fable 
be pointed out among all Christ's parables ! It cannot 
be done. Now it is said of this Rich Man that " in hell 



MR. CARPENTER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 311 

he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." We do not 
claim that he was in the lake " prepared for the devil 
and his angels/' but only in hades. In reference to 
hades I quote Psalm 16 : 9, 10 : 

" Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth : my flesh 
also shall rest in hope, for thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, (hades) 
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." 

This passage is quoted in Acts 2 : 31, and applied to 
Christ's resurrection. 

In Psa. 116 : 3, 4, David says ; 

"The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell 
(hades) gat hold upon me ; I found trouble and sorrow. Then called 
I upon the name of the Lord : O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my 
soul." 

David thought that he must die and go to the unseen 
world, but he said, (v. 9) : 

" I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living." 
Psalm 139 : 7, 8 : 

" Whither shall I go from thy spirit ? or whither shall I flee from 
thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I make 
my ted in hell, (hades) behold thou art there." 

Also, Jonah 2 : 1, 2 : 

" Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's 
belly, and said, I cried by reason of "mine affliction unto the Lord, 
and he heard me ; out of the belly of hell (hades) cried I, and thou 
heardest my voice." 

The ancients placed hades within the center of the 
earth, and Jonah says he was at the foundations of the 
mountains — the place of hades, and that the earth with 
her bars was about him forever. (See Jonah 2:6). And 
from thence he was delivered. This justified the strong 
language that he used. 

These passages illustrate the scriptural use of hades. 
I have quoted some of them that our Universalist 
friends are in the habit of quoting to show that there is 
not an eternal hell; but I am showing that the Jews and 
others did not believe that hades meant the grave ; and 
that, therefore, I can claim, by implication, that it does 



312 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

not belong to the grave. They did not have the idea 
of going to the spiritualistic spheres my brother has 
hinted at. [Time expired.] 

MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REJOINDER. 

Brethren Moderators : — Bro. Carpenter says, I 
have misrepresented Mr. Campbell's views in reference 
to his teachings concerning the setting up of the king- 
dom ; whether at Pentecost, or at the destruction of Je- 
rusalem. What I said was, that Mr. Campbell taught 
that there was not a full establishment of the kingdom 
until the destruction of Jerusalem. And I repeat it. I 
am not in the habit of misrepresenting authors, or of 
stating that they teach what they do not. I hold in my 
hands Campbell's Christian System, and will read again, 
page 171 : 

" But as the erection of the Jewish tabernacle, after the first king- 
dom of God, was the work of some time, [the Jewish tabernacle was 
not set up in a day,] and of united and combined effort of those 
raised up and qualified for the work ; so was the complete erection of 
the new temple of God. [The ' new temple of God ' here spoken of is 
the kingdom of Christ, and its complete erection is a work of some time 
— not in a day.] The apostles, as wise master-builders, laid the 
foundation, promulged the constitution, laws, and institutions of the 
King, and raised the standard of the kingdom in many towns, cities, 
and countries, for the space of forty years. [" Forty years ; " not simply 
on t he day of Pentecost.] Some of them not only saw ' the Son of 
man enter upon his reign, and the kingdom of God commence at Pente- 
cost, [note that] and carry his conquests over Judea, Samaria, and to 
the uttermost part of the earth ; but they saw the lord come with 
auful power and glory, and accomplish all his predictions on the desert- 
ed and devoted temple. Thus they saw a bright display of the gold- 
en scepter of his grace in forgiving those who bowed to his authority, 
and an appalling exhibition of the iron rod of his wrath in taking 
vengeance on his enemies, who would not have him to reign over 
them." 

Now, I understand Mr. Campbell to teach most em- 
phatically that the setting up of the kingdom was not ac- 
complished in simply one day, that it was the work of 
" some time " — that the apostles were employed in that 



ME. hughes' foueth eejoikdee. 313 

work for the space of forty years. It was indeed com- 
menced on Pentecost, but not completed till the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. I am at a loss to understand how 
any one can fail to see, that he connects the establishment 
of the kingdom with the destruction of Jerusalem, when 
he says, " some of them saw the Lord come with awful 
power and glory." But you will notice that he does not 
say, that he so came at Pentecost. And you are not to for- 
get also that he says that angels icere employed in setting 
up Christ's kingdom. So my brother loses his point on the 
angels accompanying the Saviour in his coming, as well 
as his attempted point on his coming in his kingdom be- 
ing a distinct coming from his coming in judgment. So 
much for my misrepresentation of Bro. Campbell. 

Now the brother has said that Christ came in his 
kingdom at Pentecost ; for if he should allow that Matt. 
16 : 28 : " There be some standing here which shall not 
taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his 
hingdom," applies to the destruction of Jerusalem, he is 
hopelessly defeated in his attempt to separate it from 
Christ's coming in judgment, verse 27. Let us see, 
then, as to Christ's coming at Pentecost. I read from 
Alexander Hall, in his Universalism Against Itself, page 
145: 

" It is not at all likely that the Saviour looked only six days ahead 
when he made this prediction : ' There be some standing here which 
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his 
kingdom,' implying, as any one can see, that many of them should taste of 
death, before that event transpired! whilst there is no evidence, and 
but little probability, that any who were standing by tasted of death 
before the transfiguration." 

Mr. Hall is here combating the idea of some, that the 
coming in Matt. 16 : 27, 28, was at the transfiguration, 
only six days after the uttering of the prediction to which 
he refers ; because it was not likely that any of them 
would die in that short space of time. He says, the 
language, " there be some standing here, which shall not 
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his 



314 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

kingdom/' implies that many of them would taste of 
death before that event transpired. But that prediction 
was uttered at the farthest, not more than one year before 
the day of Pentecost — probably not more than six 
months before that time. And I ask, is it probable that 
many of them died before the day of Pentecost? The 
coming of Christ in his kingdom was an event more dis- 
tant than the day of Pentecost. The reasoning of Mr. 
Hall is as strong in its application to the one case as the 
other. I think Bro. Carpenter would do well to take a 
lesson from his brother Hall, and follow his reasoning 
on this subject. 

But he says there is to be a " second coming " of 
Christ, yet future. But I have shown that Christ's 
coming in judgment is never called his " second com- 
ing." In fact, the phrase " second coming " does not 
occur in the Bible. The nearest approach to it is in 
Heb. 9 : 27, 28 : " And as it is appointed unto men 
once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ 
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them 
that look for him, shall he appear the second time without 
sin unto salvation." But this is not his coming in judg- 
ment back to earth again ; it is his appearing in the 
presence of God for us, as in verse 24 : " For Christ is 
not entered into the holy places made with hands, which 
are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now 
to appear in the presence of God for us." Besides, this is a 
conditional appearing, in which he is seen by the eye of 
faith only. " Unto them that look for him, shall he 
appear the second time." The judgment here mentioned 
is not a general judgment at the end of time, but one 
immediately consequent upon the death spoken of in the 
text. 

He says, I am all in a muddle about the judgment. 
Not any more than he is, I think. Now I say, there is 
such a thing as a coming of Christ in his kingdom in the 
past, a kingdom in which he is to reign, and execute 



315 

judgment and justice in the earth. Will he not admit 
that ? He cannot deny it. Matt. 16:28; Jer. 23 : 5, 
are too strong and explicit for that. But this coming is 
connected with his coming in judgment to reward every 
man according to his works, as I have shown most con- 
clusively. Now then, if he has come in his kingdom, 
and is reigning in his kingdom, then his coming in judg- 
ment is a past event ; for he judges as a king, and judg- 
es in his kingdom ; and not after he has given up his 
kingdom. Is there any confusion in that ? 

But here come in the heathen once more ! He does 
not know but that I am going to turn heathen ! Well, 
perhaps he wishes I were a heathen, or were anywhere 
else, rather than here. But I will not turn heathen until 
we are through with this debate, at any rate. He is not 
to get rid of me so easily, nor the heathen either. Now 
I showed you that, according to his principles, the hea- 
then can not be saved ; not only that, but it follows as 
a logical conclusion from his doctrine that they are all 
eternally damned, because of the want of an opportuni- 
ty of being saved. But if to avoid that difficulty, he 
should say,that they will all be saved, then they must be 
saved, according to his theory, without Christ, uncon- 
ditionally ! But again, if they can be saved without 
the gospel, then to preach the gospel to them would be 
a curse to them, the means of damning millions upon 
millions of them, while it would not save a single soul 
of them. Preach the gospel to them, and but a few 
would accept it; the many would reject it, so that it 
would be a gospel of damation, instead of a gospel of 
life and salvation ! I tell you Jie does not want to 
come out on that subject ; but I shall continue to shell 
the thickets in which he hides, to see if I can not drive 
him out. 

Bro. Carpenter refers to the definition of aion by 
Aristotle. I think I can give from memory his defini- 



316 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

tion as it is found in the Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knoirfedge, page 53 : 

" For the period which comprehends the time of every one's life' 
beyond which, according to nature, nothing exists, is called his (aion) 
eternity. And for the same reason also, the period of the whole 
heaven, even the infinite time of all things, and the period compre- 
hending that infinity, is (aion) eternity ; deriving its name from (aei 
einai) always being, immortal, and divine." 

Now bow can Aristotle reason from aion — the period 
of a man's life- time, up to aion — the eternity of God, as 
the radical meaning of aion ? That the one is, because 
of the other. Why, that would be simply nonsense ! 
And why should he say that " the period which com- 
prehends every man's life, beyond which, according to 
nature, nothing exists, is called his eternity V Was 
Aristotle such a numbskull as to say, that the period 
of a man's life-time is eternity? More than that, Aris- 
totle, according to Whately, did not believe in any here- 
after for man; so that the period of a man's life-time, 
which he is made to call his eternity, he confined to 
this life. Now how could he reason, that eternity is the 
radical meaning of aion, because it comprehends the 
period of a man's life, according to the logic of my 
brother ? 

Aion means a period or cycle, and can be applied to 
any period or dispensation. It may be the age of a man, 
the duration of a nation, or the eternity of God ; in which 
latter case, of course, it means eternity in the absolute 
sense. But whatever is its meaning, eternity is not its 
primary meaning, but it means primarily an age, or 
cycle. Its meaning in any given case is to be deter- 
mined by the circumstances of the thing to which it is 
applied. 

Dr. Edward Beecher says, in the Christian Union, 
that the translation of Aristotle already quoted is a 
wrong one, and I quote his translation of Aristotle's 
definition : 



ME. hughes' foueth eejoindee. 317 

" For the limit enclosing the time of the life of every man,_ beyond 
which, according to his nature, there is nothing, is called his contin- 
uous existence, (aion.) On the same principle, the limit of the whole 
heaven, and the limit enclosing the universal system, is the divine 
and immortal, ever-existing aion, (God) deriving his name, aion, 
from his ever-existing, {aei on.) Here God is regarded as the center 
and life of the world of aeons who are beyond time and space, and as 
the only limit of the whole material system in which there is time and 
space. That Aristotle is speaking of the Supreme God, the first 
mover, himself unmoved, is obvious from what follows, though com- 
monly omitted, for he adds : ' On him depend all other beings for 
existence and life, some clearly and strictly, and others more remote- 
ly and obscurely.' This is true of God, but not of eternity." 

I give Dr. Beecher's position on aion : 

" 1. That the original sense of aion is not eternity, nor time in 
any form, but life. 

2. That the etymological sense of Aristotle, aei on (ever-existing) 
was introduced into the Greek language at least five centuries after 
the days of Homer, and was, in fact, the creation of a new philosophi- 
cal word, first used in the sense of eternity by Plato and Aristotle, and 
after them by many other philosophers. 

3. That this philosophical sense of aion was introduced into the 
Alexandrine Greek through the writings of Aristotle and Plato, but 
especially by the Timasus of Plato, where it is used in setting forth 
his cosmology. From him in particular it was adopted by Philo, 
and reappeared in his writings. 

4. That the passage of Aristotle in which this etymology occurs, 
has been mis-translated, for it does not give the etymology of the ab- 
stract idea eternity, but the concrete idea God, as an ever-existing 
person, from whom all other personal beings derived existence and 
life." Christian Union, 1876. 

I will now quote some other authorities on the mean- 
ing ot aion and aionios. I quote first from Benjamin 
Wilson, in Emphatic Diaglott, Aj)p.,~page 1 : 

" Age, aion, an indefinite period of time, past, present, or future. 
This is the proper translation of aion, which in the common version 
is often improperly rendered world, always, and forever. The word oc- 
curs about one hundred times, in its singular and plural forms. The 
adjective form of the same word, aionios, is found about seventy -five 
times, and is applied to life, zoe, life, forty -five times : to fire, three 
times ; to glory three times, etc. Eternal, or everlasting, as generally 
understood, is an improper translation of aionios; in fact, we have no 
proper equivalent in the English language. Being an adjective, and 
derived from the noun aion, it cannot properly go beyond its mean- 
ing." 



318 second PKOPOsrric-N. 

Mr. Sweeny said, in the Manford- Sweeny debate, in 
reference to axon: 

" The primary idea of the word aion, here rendered "world," is, I 
think, periodicity. It means a period; some time, perhaps no more 
than a Jewish age ; sometimes, certainly, the world, as we use the 
word world." Page 299. 

Will my friend Carpenter agree with Bro. Sweeny, 
that the primary meaning ofaionis "periodicity?" 
Professor Tayler Lewis says : 

" The word olam cannot here (Eccl. 1 : 5,) mean forever in the sense 
of endless duration, though it may be used for such idea when the 
context clearly demands it, as when it is employed to denote the con- 
tinuance of the Divine existence, or of the Divine kingdom, or any- 
thing else connected with the proper divine eternity as the word is 
now taken. It is, however, in that case, only the employment of 
necessary finite language to express an infinite idea strictly 
transcending all language, unless poorly represented by a concep- 
tionless negative word, which, although logically correct, is far in- 
ferior in vividness and power to some vast though finite term, which 
by Very greatness and immeasurability raises in the mind the thought 
of something beyond, and even still beyond, worlds without end. 
This effect is still further increased by plurals and re-duplications." 
Excursus, on Olamic and Aionian words in Scripture. Lange's Com. on 
Eccl., page 45. 

" There are other passages in which the sense of olam would seem 
even more limited than in this verse of Ecclesiastes, (1 : 3,) or rather 
to be taken as a hyperbolical term for the indefinite or unmeasured, 
though of conceivably short duration. Compare Ex. 21 : 6, where it 
is said of a servant in certain cases, ' and he shall serve him. forever ; ' 
that is, in distinctive form, a set time. So felso Lev. 25 : 26. The same 
language is used of inheritances, and earthly possessions, as in Deut. 
29 : 28. As an example of the immense extremes which the context 
shows in the use of the word, can place the language employed but a 
short distance from this latter passage. Deut. 32 : 40 : ' Hive for- 
ever,' spoken of God in such a way as to mean nothing less than the-- 
absolute or endless eternity. But it is the subject to which it applies 
that forces to this, not any etymological necessity of the word itself." 
Excursus, page 50. 

Now the sum of all this is, that the word aion does 
not primarily mean eternity. That is its last meaning, 
a meaning to which it is forced by the nature of the 
subject to which it is applied, and not from the innate 
force of the word itself, according to all these authors. 
It is life, age, period, life-time, etc., or down or up to 



319 

eternity as its last or more remote meaning. These 
authorities go to show also that the adjective cannot 
mean more than the noun from which it is derived, as 
the stream can not rise higher than its fountain; so that 
neither can aionios have eternal as its primary mean- 
ing. Says Prof. Tayler Lewis : 

" The preacher, in contending with the Universalist or Eestora- 
tionist, would commit an error, and, it may be, suffer a failure in his 
argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or 
historical significance of the words aion, aionios, and attempt to prove 
that, of themselves, they necessarily carry the meaning of endless du- 
ration." 

I would suggest that Bro. Carpenter is that man ; and 
he meets the fate predicted by Prof. Lewis. 

But he says, that aion in the accusative, preceded by 
the preposition eis, is never used in the limited sense, 
but always means unlimited duration. But how about 
that when we find it in that form in the plural? or its 
reduplication both in the singular and plural? He 
will remember that Prof. Lewis says, the idea of vast 
duration "is still further increased by plurals and re- 
duplications." Will he deny it ? But a word that can 
be thus intensified and heightened in its meaning can- 
not of its own native force mean eternity. Can you 
add force to the word eternity ? or increase its mean- 
ing ? But how does the case add to the force of the 
word as to duration ? And how is it that this word 
must be fortified and strengthened to make it mean 
eternity ; if that is its radical meaning? 

There are some other matters on the subject of the 
meaning of these words, that I will attend to to-mor- 
row morning ; but I wish now to introduce some points 
in the negative : 

I object to the doctrine of endless punishment : 

I. Because it is not a doctrine of Revelation. 

(1.) It is not in the Old Testament. In proof of 
this, my assertion, I quote the following authorities : 

" It is plain that in the Old Testament, the most profound silence is 



320 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

observed in regard to the state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, 
their happiness or misery." Dr. George Campbell, in Gospels, Prelim. 
Diss. 6, part 2, sec. 19. 

" Before the captivity, and Macedonian and Eoman conquests, 
the Jews observed the most profound silence upon the state of the de- 
ceased, their happiness or misery." A. Campbell, App. to N. T. 
page 55. 

" Jahn, whose excellent work is a text-book in the Andover The- 
ological Seminary, says : ' We have not authority, therefore, de- 
cidedly to say, that any other motives were held out to the ancient 
Hebrews to pursue good and avoid evil, than those which were de- 
rived from the rewards and punishments of this life." John's Arch- 
eology, page 398. 

MlLMAN. — " The sanction on which the Hebrew law was founded 
is extraordinary. The law-giver (Moses) maintains a profound si- 
lence on that fundamental article, if not of political, at least of re- 
ligious legislation — rewards and punishments in another life. He 
substituted temporal chastisements and temporal blessings." Mil- 
man's history of the Jews, vol. 1, page 117. 

Paley. — " This (Mosaic) dispensation dealt in temporal rewards 
and punishments. In the 28th of Deuteronomy you find Moses, with 
prodigious solemnity, pronounce the blessings and cursings which 
awaited the children of Israel, under the dispensation to which they 
were called. And you will observe, that these blessings consisted al- 
together of worldly benefits, and these curses of worldly punish- 
ments." Paley's works, Vol. 3, page 110, verse 13. 

Bishop Warburton. — " In the Jewish Eepublic both the rewards 
and punishments promised by Heaven were temporal only, such as 
health, long life, peace, plenty, dominion, etc. Diseases, premature 
death, war, famine, want, subjection, captivity, etc. And in no one 
place of the Mosaic Institutes is there the least mention, or any in- 
telligible hint of the rewards and punishments of another life." War- 
burton's Div. Leg. of Moses, Vol. 3, pages 1,2. 

These are all on my brother's side of the question, 
firm believers in the doctrine of endless punishment. 
Nothing; but honest candor and the force of truth could 
have compelled to such admissions. 

I give one other proof, oae whose authority will not 
be disputed. I allude to Paul the apostle. " For if 
the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every 
transgression and disobedience received a just recom- 
pense of reward ; how shall we escape if we neglect so 
great salvation?" Heb. 2 : 2, 3. This settles the 
question. The Old Testament deals in temporal re- 



MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REJOINDER. 321 

wards and punishments ; there are no sanctions in it 
for future endless misery. 

(2.) It is not in the New Testament. The new 
covenant is a better covenant, established on better 
promises. " But now hath he obtained a more excel- 
lent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of 
a better covenant, which is established on better prom- 
ises." Heb. 8 : 6. But it could not be a better cov- 
enant if it teaches endless punishment, while the first 
teaches temporal and limited punishment only. 

If the Jews were liable to, and exposed to endless 
punishment; would not God have warned them of 
their danger? Ashe did not warn them of any such 
penalty, he could not justly hold them liable to it, or 
expose them to it. It would seem, then, that universal 
salvation was the rule in the Old Testament times ; and 
there is no possible reason by which the new covenant 
can be called a better covenant, if it brings liability to 
endless misery. 

If the Mosaic covenant does not deal in eternal pen- 
alties, and the Christian does, is it not manifest ab- 
surdity to call it the gospel, the good news of salvation? 
Is it not rather the gospel of damnation ? It saves 
some ; but damns millions. How is it, then, good 
tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people ! Is 
it not exceeding strange, beyond all accounting for, 
that if this doctrine be true, that God did not reveal it, 
teach, nor give it his sanction, for four thousand years 
after the creation of man ? If it is true, its sanctions so 
awful, its interests at stake so tremendous, can we de- 
fend God the Father from the charge of criminally neg- 
lecting the eternal interests of his children? Who 
dare to say, that thousands of God's creatures were 
dropping continually, day by day, iuto eternal perdi- 
tion, while God uttered- no warning, had no eye to pity, 
no hand to save ! [Time expired.] 
21 



322 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

MR. CARPENTER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 

Sirs Moderators : — In answer to the argument of 
the brother on the original terms to which he has refer- 
red, I wish to calkittention to the use of aion in the accu- 
sative, preceded by the preposition eis, as used in such 
passages as Mark 3 : 29 ; 2 Peter 2 : 17 ; Jude 13 ; Eev. 
14:11; 20:10. When aion is thus preceded in the 
singular (els ton aiona) or plural, (eis tous aionas,) it is 
never used in a limited sense, but always involves the 
meaning of endless, or infinite duration. My opponent 
was going to settle this matter for us in about a minute ; 
but he did it in the same way he settled the eifect of the 
reduplication of the terms, viz : by referring to Prof. 
Tayler Lewis, to show that it strengthened or intensi- 
fied the sense of the term. But even his own chosen 
witness, from whom he quotes in almost every speech, 
renders him no essential aid. My positions here are in- 
vulnerable. 

In connection with my argument on these words, I 
gave the definition of the original terms by several lex- 
icographers. I read from Robinson that " aion with 
eis always implies duration without end," and from Don- 
negan that eis ton aiona, has the meaning " to eternity." 
I will give his entire definition ; Aion, time ; a space 
of time ; life-time ; the age of man ; a long period of 
time ; eternity ; the spinal marrow ; [perhaps that is 
your definition, brother Hughes !] eis ton aiona, to eter- 
nity ; aidnios, of long duration ; eternal." That is the 
definition given by this author, and it fully sustains the 
position I have assumed, and proves that when those 
terms are applied to the punishment of the wicked, they 
must be taken in their unrestricted sense. 

Now I have another authority upon the use of the 
word aion. Robinson, in his Lexicon of the New Tes- 
tament, says, under the second definition of the word, 
which he gives : 



ME. CAKPENTER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 323 

" Put for endless duration, eternity, ever, everlasting ; (B) of 
eternity past, once simply ; 2 Peter 3 : 18, eis hameran aionos, i. e. eis 
hameran aionion, i. e. time without end, eternal duration, forever. * * 
Elsewhere only with eis, and ahvays implying duration vjithout end ; so 
eis ton aiona, forever, spoken of God and his word, 1 Peter 1 : 25 ; of 
Christ's priesthood, Heb. 5:6; 6 : 20 ; 7 : 17, 21; 24 ; John 12 : 34 ; 
of the happiness of the righteous, John 6 : 51, 58 ; 2 Cor. 9:9; 1 
John 2 : 17 ; 2 John 2 ; of the punishment of the wicked, eis aiona, 
2 Peter 2 : 17 ; Jude 13 ; and so generically, Luke 1 : 55, etc," 

Now here Mr. Robinson says eis aiona, in the accu- 
sative, always implies duration without end, and so he 
says it is applied to the punishment of the wicked. We 
have this form in several instances already introduced, 
and in others that will be introduced. I hope my bro- 
ther will take notice of this argument. 

Then he refers to Heb. 9 : 27, 28, and after denying 
that there is to be a " second coming " of Christ, having 
denied that the Scriptures speak of a " second coming," 
he then takes this manner of getting out of it, that the 
apostle refers to his appearing the second time without 
sin [i. e. a sin-offering] unto salvation, and he says that 
means his appearing in heaven for us, and that he is to 
be seen by the eye of faith! And he says it is not to be 
a general appearing at all ; but that it refers to his ap- 
pearing in the presence of God for us — to his intercesso- 
ry work for us! Bat he is performing that all the time. 
" He ever liveth to make intercession for us." And 
how is the brother going to reconcile his inconsistencies? 
If he is appearing all the time, how can he appear the 
second- time f And what is he going to do with this 
judgment after death ? How is he going to reconcile 
that with his doctrine that we are being judged now; 
and that there is no judgment when Christ comes ! I 
think that his discomfiture here is apparent. 

He tries again to make Alexander Campbell put the 
coming of Christ to judgment at the destruction of Je- 
rusalem. He says that Mr. Campbell says the setting 
up of the kingdom began at Pentecost and was con- 
cluded at the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Christ 



324 SECOND PEC-POSITION. 

came at that time. Now Mr. Campbell knew too much 
about the Bible for such nonsense as that. Does Mr. 
Campbell say one word about Christ coming at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem to set up a kingdom or to a judg- 
ment ? Not one word. Then why does he try to per- 
vert his words ? A cause that demands such perversion 
is ungodly. Mr. Campbell speaks of angels being em- 
ployed in setting up the kingdom and in " ministering 
to the heirs of salvation," now as well as in the past, but 
he does not speak of their being at the destruction of Je- 
rusalem ; but he does refer to their being present " when 
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his 
mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them 
that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our 
Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
from the glory of his power." But that is the very 
thing my brother denies. He says that Alexander 
Campell is the " head " of the Church with which I am 
connected. He knows very well that we do not ac- 
knowledge any man as the head of the Church. We 
hold Christ to be the head of the Church, and acknowl- 
edgeno other authority over us in this matter. It must 
be a weak cause that demands such misrepresentations. 
Bro. Hughes still insists that Christ has already come in 
judgment. As a principal proof he quotes 2 Tim. 4:1: 
" Who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appear- 
ing and his kingdom." This he calls the " marrying " 
of the coming and the judgment. So it is; but both are 
future as here presented. At that time the dead as well 
the living are to be judged. That was not true at Je- 
rusalem, nor has it yet transpired. The earthly king- 
dom was established many years before Paul wrote the 
language we have quoted, and the same apostle says 
(Col. 1:13) some had been " translated into the kingdom 
of God's dear Son." But Peter speaks of another mani- 
festation of the kingdom, yet future, called the " ever- 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 325 

lasting kingdom," to be entered after the second coming 
of Christ, the resurrection, and the judgment. (2 Peter 
1:11.) 

But he says "judgment must begin at the house of 
the Lord." We continue the quotation and ask, " what 
shall the end be of those that obey not the gospel ? " 
The apostle says it is " destruction," and Christ says it 
is " everlasting puishment." 

But he asks if when " God is all in all," if the " devil 
will be in any?" What a silly play upon words! He 
knows that this expression does not refer to God's 
dwelling in men, but only to the universality of his 
rule. 

He insists upon lugging the heathen into the discus- 
sion. Though at this late hour in the discussion, he is 
determined on bringing them in. He says that my the- 
ory excludes them all, provides mercy for none of them, 
and inevitably damns them all. I say it does no such 
thing. You will bear me witness that I have declined 
to take any position, pro or con, on the question of the 
salvation of the heathen. The reason was that they 
were not in the proposition, and that, as I announced at 
the outset, I was opposed to entering upon side issues, 
and was in favor of a fair, open discussion of the mat- 
ters involved in our two propositions. My present 
proposition does not include them, and I have really 
no right to discuss them here any more than to discuss 
the question of where Cain got his wife. 

But as I have a little time now, being considerably 
ahead of the brother, I will give him a few ele- 
mentary thoughts upon that question. I will refer him 
to Rom. 2:11-15: 

"For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as 
have sinned without law shall also perish without law ; and as many 
as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (for not the 
hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law 
shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, 
do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the 



326 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

law, are a law unto themselves ; which shew the work of the law 
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and 
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one an- 
other.)" 

Now here we are taught that persons are held respon- 
sible for just the amount of light they have. The 
Gentiles, who were without the light of the law, it 
seems had some light of nature — a law written in their 
hearts — just how much light they have is not stated — 
and that is their law, by which they will be justified or 
condemned. I also refer him to 2 Cor. 8:12: 

" For if there he first a willing mind, it is accepted according to 
that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." 

It is true that this passage refers to money matters, 
but the same principle is involved ; and it meets the 
objection that God would damn the heathen for not 
believing in a gospel they had not heard. I refer him 
to these two passages as the best I know to prove to 
him that God will judge men by their opportunities, 
and that, therefore, those who have not received the 
gospel will not be held responsible for obedience to the 
gospel; and furthermore, " where there is no law there 
is no transgression." Rom. 4 : 15. I really do not 
know why my brother has lugged this question in 
here, unless, as a friend of the heathen, he has been 
wanting to defend his "own clients ! " 

He quotes from Dr. Geo. Campbell, Jahn, Milman, 
and others, to prove that under the Mosaic economy, 
rewards and punishments were confined to the present 
life, and that the motives to obedience were not then 
drawn from the future state ; and he applies what they 
have said about the teaching of the law of Moses on 
that subject, to the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. 
But their allusions are to the law of Moses. And I 
deny that they have said that the Old Testament is 
silent on the subject of future punishment. I will 
make this point here, that the law of Moses, to which 
they refer, is just as clear about future punishment as 



MR. CARPENTER^ FIFTH SPEECH. 327 

it is about future rewards. And so, if its silence is in 
any measure against the one, it is as much against the 
other. Now the argument here is that if the doctrine of 
eternal punishment is not spoken of in the law of Mo- 
ses, therefore it is not true. Of course, then, if the 
doctrine of universal salvation is not spoken of in the 
law of Moses, neither is that true. But if he quotes 
these authors as denying that the doctrine is taught in 
the Old Testament, then we will wait until he brings 
the proof. 

He quotes from Prof. Tayler Lewis on the meaning 
of aion. Now I may admit all that Prof. Lewis says 
about the effect of the reduplication of these terms, of 
plurals, etc., but that does not avail the brother. His 
conclusion that the primitive word, thus reduplicated 
or pluralized, has not the absolute meaning in itself 
because it is thus intensified, does not follow, nor that 
the meaning of the word is strengthened thereby. Does 
not the Saviour often say " Verily, verily I say unto 
you?" Now does that strengthen the meaning of 
" verily?" Would not the things referred to have 
been just as true, if he had used only one " verily" in 
those cases ? I think so. Then his argument in the 
parallel case fails. Bfat I give another example. 
In Heb. 13 : 5, rendered by Mr. Wilson thus : "No, I 
will not leave thee ; no, no, I will not forsake thee," 
Paul duplicates the "noes." I suppose if he had used 
only one " no " there the declaration would have been 
false, on my brother's theory. 

As to the quotation from Benjamin Wilson, I re- 
mark that Mr. Wilson is a " soul-sleeper," and that 
his translation was gotten up with a special reference 
to supporting his favorite dogmas. Besides he is un- 
reliable in questions of this kind, as has been frequently 
shown by his deviations from correct renderings in order 
to save his peculiar " ism." And he is not acknowl- 
edged anywhere in the learned world as authority. 



328 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

He gives as his opinion that aion has no English 
equivalent, and then renders it "age-lasting." But 
after all his exegetical exploits, he has not wrested the 
word from our service in this connection. 

He says that aion means " age, an indefinite period 
of time, past, present, or future," etc. But that is not 
the word we are claimiug here. It is aionios, and he 
may say that the adjective is derived from the noun and 
cannot properly go beyond its meaning. But this 
point we admit. We claim that this word aionios, 
in the adjective form, is used in an unlimited sense, to 
express endless duration. Aionios, the adjective, and 
not axon, the noun, from which it is derived, is the 
word of primary importance in this discussion. But 
Universalists have been accustomed to deny that aion 
means endless, and then to claim that its adjective aio- 
nios could not possibly have a meaning not found in 
the primitive aion, from which it is derived. But we 
have shown incontestably, (even Dr. Beecher himself 
admitting it) that aion does sometimes signify duration 
without limit. Indeed, my opponent does not dare to 
deny this. Hence he must admit that aionios may sig- 
nify endless duration. But we affirm most emphati- 
cally that endless duration is it^ current, if not its uni- 
versal meaning. And of all its numerous New Testa- 
ment occurrences, we challenge him to cite a single in- 
stance in which it is used in a limited sense. 

But my brother refers to Edward Beecher on aionios, 
and I may as well introduce him here at some length. 

In 1873 and 1874 Dr. Beecher wrote a series of about 
thirty articles for the Christian Union on u Future Re- 
tribution." These have been often cited by Uni- 
versalists with unauthorized meanings. Dr. Pond re- 
viewed Dr. Beecher in the same paper in a series of 
most pungent and critical articles, in which he vindi- 
cates Aristotle's definition of aion, and gives to it the 
proper meaning " everlasting ; " though he allows that 



329 

it is sometimes used in an accommodated and hyper- 
bolic sense. He also shows that gehenna meant, amoug 
the Jews, the place of future punishment, long before 
the time of Christ. He then reviews him as to the be- 
lief of the Fathers of the first, down to the middle 
centuries, and of the ancient schools, and shows that 
most of them believed in endless conscious punishment, 
though some, such as Origen, believed in u rotation/' 
or transmigration; some in annihilation, and some in 
restoration ; though more generally of the transmigra- 
tion school. Dr. Pond thus closes his fourth article : 

" I have not time to pursue the examination of Dr. Beecher's ar- 
ticles further. He nowhere announces his disbelief in future pun- 
ishment. Yet his articles must have a tendency to shake the faith 
of Christians in this essential doctrine of evangelical religion, and 
to make the impression that to hold fellowship with modern Univer- 
salists is but to follow the example of the early fathers of the 
Church. But such an inference, even if we were to admit the prem- 
ises, is by no means admissible. Our modern Universalists, in gen- 
eral, are very different men from the few who doubted of eternal 
punishment in the second and third centuries. With them the error 
seems to have been merely of the head, which did not effect their 
preaching, their system of doctrine, or their lives ; whereas Univer- 
salists of the present century, from the days of Murray to those of 
Hosea Ballou, and from Hosea Ballou to the present time, have re- 
jected most of the great doctrines of the gospel, and have been en- 
tirely unevangelical — the most of them confessedly so — in their 
preaching and their lives. No two men can be more different in 
spirit and doctrine than Theodore of Mopsuesta and Hosea Ballou. 
Dr. Beecher closes this number (the letter under review) with some 
additional remarks respecting the meaning of aionios. By the help 
of a Greek critic of the 6th century (Olympiodorus) he comes to the 
conclusion that when aionios is used in reference to a period which 
by assumption, is infinite and unbounded, it means eternal, but when 
used in reference to time, or things limited, the sense is limited by 
them. ' We can now see.' he adds, ' that if the coming age is re- 
garded as an endless age, without divisions, or new dispensations, 
the word aionios will include in its idea eternal duration.' 

" Well, we do so regard the coming age — the future world. We 
have no faith in Origen's theory, that ■ there is revealed a series of 
dispensations in future ages, rising one above another.' The Scrip- 
tures have nothing to say of such successive dispensations. The fu- 
ture world — I me-.n that succeeding the judgment — is there set be- 
fore us as one continuous, endless period. 



0<5U SECOND PEC-POSITION. 

" The righteous know no change, except an upward one from glo- 
ry to glory ; while the state of the wicked is unchangeably and rebel- 
iously downward, to all eternity. He that is unjust will be unjust still, 
and he that is holy will be holy still. Applied to such a state, accord- 
ing to Dr. Beecher's own showing, the word aionios denotes a literal 
eternity, just as it does when applied to God." 

To these strictures of Dr. Pond, Dr. Beecher replied 
in the Christian Union of August 19, 1874. In that 
reply he says : 

" I have read with deep interest and careful attention the stric- 
tures of my old friend, Dr. Pond. * * * * In the 
first place Dr. Pond fundamentally misrepresents my position as to 
the revelation of future retributions in the Old Testament. He says : 
' In his first number Dr. B. considers the doctrine of retribution, as 
set forth in the Old Testament, and insists that the only form of re- 
tribution there presented was a temporal, and did not refer to the 
spirit world, or a future state.' 

" To this I reply, Dr. Pond does not quote me correctly. He 
omits the key word of the passage quoted. That key word is the 
qualifying word prominently. What I said in fact was this : ' The 
only form of retribution prominently presented in the Old Testament 
Scriptures, as existing for four thousand years, was temporal, and 
did not refer to the spirit world or a future state.' This, of course, 
implies that future retribution was presented in the Old Testament, 
but not in a prominent manner. And is not this the fact? Can Dr. 
Pond deny it ? 

" But to remove all excuse for misunderstanding me, I carefully 
stated exactly what I meant, as follows : ' These remarks on the 
predominance of temporal retributions in the Old Testament are 
not meant to affirm or imply that there was not some belief in a fu- 
ture state and its retributions among the Old Testament saints, going 
beyond any express revelations of the Mosaic law, and disclosing it- 
self in their recorded experience. 7 

-:;:- V * «- * #' 

" Dr. Pond has also misrepresented my position on the sense of 
axon and aionios. He represents me as saying that they never mean 
anything in the Bible but life, or, in a limited sense, the world to 
come. ' He says : ' Most certainly, then, the sense attempted to be 
forced upon these aionian words of Dr. Beecher as denoting merely 
life, or in a limited sense, the world to come, does not accord with 
Scriptural usage, nor can it with any consistency be carried through 
the Bible. Who would think of saying of God,his mercy endureth for a 
limited period in the world to come; or of Christ, he is God over all 
a limited period in the world to come ? ' Now, if Dr. Pond had noticed 
and knew that I have said repeatedly, that these words as applied to 
God denote a proper eternity, could he have honestly written the 
above attempt to make my views appear ridiculous? Could he first 



MR. CARPENTER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 331 

have stated that in all such cases I hold the words to denote a proper 
eternity, and then added to the statement his unworthy words of rid- 
icule ? His words assume that I deny what I have asserted again 
and again, and have no force on any other assumption. But if I 
assert as applied to God these words denote proper eternity, what is- 
sue is there or can there he between us ? Precisely this : whether 
eternity is the primary and the original meaning of these words. 
* * * I report Dr. Lewis as saying of aionios - that it 
means pertaining to the age or world to come, taking world in the 
true, sense.' So then, according to Dr. Lewis, there is a direct refer- 
ence to time. This Dr. Pond reverses and ascribes to me. Dr. Lewis 
says in the phrase ' world to come,' world is used in the true sense. 
Upon this Dr. Pond charges me with saying that aion is used without 
any reference to duration, that is, to time. Will Dr. Pond tell us 
how anything pertaining to an age can have no reference to duration? 
Is not duration involved in the very idea of an age ?" 

So argues Dr. Edward Beecher, who has been so of- 
ten quoted by Universalists as being on their side, and 
who here charges Dr. Pond with misrepresenting him 
on that question. And we have him similarly upon 
the early Fathers of the Church. They have not been 
introduced here ; but I want to put some things on re- 
cord, and I will quote him here. And remember, in 
introducing Mr. Beecher here, we are quoting from 
one whom my brother has been claiming as in his fa- 
vor. 

In the Christian Union, of May 27, 1874, in summing 
up his effort to show that eternal retribution was not 
always held by the Fathers, he concedes : 

"From this exhibition, it is evident that no definite, uniform, and 
established doctrine of retribution can be found in the ages before 
Origen. Clement and Polycarp teach nothing definite. Ideas of re- 
storation are found in Hennas to a limited extent by the side of 
eternal punishment. Of annihilation he says nothing in a clear and 
settled form. The Sybilline Oracles developed universal restora- 
tion, and were early and widely read. Justin and Irenseus taught 
the annihilation of all the wicked ; Barnabus, Ignatius, Theophilus 
do not teach restoration, but are indefinite as to annihilation. Athe- 
nagorus, Tatian, and Turtullian teach eternal punishment. Before 
Origen, Clement of Alexandria taught that all punishment here 
and hereafter was remedial, and thus prepared the way for the more 
full development of Origen. We can now see why it was so long 
before any opposition was raised to the restoration of Origen. There 



332 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

had been no controversy, and no established creed before his day, and 
all men wrote freely, and often left their views undeveloped." 

I might refer here to some of the Fathers. I have 
in my hand the views of Clement. And I might refer 
to Barnabas and Hermas in which the same doctrine is 
taught. So that Mr. Beecher scarcely represents them 
strongly enough. So much for Dr. Edward Beecher. 

But then my brother admits — that is, he does it by 
his quotations — that aionios is universally conceded by 
the authorities to express infinite duration. But he 
claims that it is limited when applied to future punish- 
ment. But I demand of him to give us in the Greek 
a stronger word of duration. He may refer me in the 
English to undying, unfading, enduring, etc., but these 
are not properly terms of duration at all. They are 
only so by implication. How can he express infinite 
duration in the Greek more strongly than by aionios f 

Matthew 25th comes up again, and I call attention to 
that word kolasis, rendered punishment in the 46th 
verse. I want to know what that word means. We 
find this noun twice in the New Testament. (Matt. 25 : 
46 ; 1 John 4 : 18.) In the first place it is rendered, as 
we have seen, punishment ; in the other torment. The 
verb kolazo, occurs twice, (Acts 4 : 24 ; 2 Peter 2 : 
9,) and is rendered punish in both instances. The Lex- 
icons define it as follows : Pickering, "The pruning 
of trees — in New Testament, punishment, chastisement, 
pruning," etc. Kobinson, "A curtailing, pruning ; in 
New Testament, punishment." Groves, "Punishment, 
chastisement, pruning," etc. Liddell and Scott, " A 
pruning ; pruning, checking ; chastisement." Green- 
field, " Chastisement, punishment ; apprehension of 
punishment; torment." Donnegan, "The act of 
clipping or pruning ; restriction ; reproof ; punish- 
ment." Bullions, " Punishment ; chastisement." 
Franz Passow, (^Leipsic edition, 1874; 4 large volumes, 



333 

regarded as the lexicon of lexicons.) "Maiming; 
blunting; trimming (of trees) ; chastisement," etc. 

If " cutting off," or " pruning/' be the radical idea, 
as appears, and " chastisement " secondary, it is highly 
conclusive of my proposition. Is the limb cut off ever 
restored? Having lost its life-connection, is it not 
burned ? If you prune a limb from an apple tree, I 
want to know if that limb that has been cut off can be 
saved? But this is a pruning of the people, and I 
would like to know how those that are to be cut off, 
and cast into the lake of fire, with the devil and his 
angels, are to be saved ? 

Upon the question of the coming of Christ I have 
already adduced a number of Scripture passages, and I 
have shown that several important events will be very 
nearly concomitant with the second coming of Christ, 
viz : 1. All the dead will be raised. 2. The living 
righteous will be changed and caught up. 3. Wicked 
men and angels will be condemned. 4. The righteous 
will receive their endless reward. 5. Wicked men 
and angels will be consigned endlessly to the place pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels. 6. The elements 
melt, etc. 7. Hades and the grave, no longer needed, 
are destroyed. 8. Christ leaves the mediatorial throne. 
This leaves wicked men and angels doomed to " eter- 
nal " punishment, with no Christ as a Mediator. And 
from this " second death' ' there is no possible resurrec- 
tion revealed. 

I introduced also the case of the Rich Man and Laz- 
arus. And here the brother made a concession I think 
he did not intend to. He wanted to know if the Rich 
Man did not pray. Where? Why, over there. And 
so he admitted that the Rich Man and Lazarus of the 
gospel represent individual characters, and not nations 
or sects. I want you to mark that now. This prayer 
of the Rich Man he admits is after death, thus acknowl- 
edging its force, and fairly destroying the Jew and 



334 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Gentile interpretation sometimes put upon this pas- 



But we were talking in our former argument upon 
this passage, of hades. Now, we do know what views 
the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, took of hades. 
Christ reproves them for many things, but not for their 
notions concerning hades, nor yet concerning angels, 
spirits, and the resurrection. But he endorses their 
notions, by refuting the Sadducees, and using the terms 
and forms of speech common among the Pharisees. 
Here he uses the term hades, and speaks in exact ac- 
cordance with the current notions of the Jews, and 
this without a word of explanation. But Jesus was 
not a deceiver. .Hades occurs eleven times in the New- 
Testament, and is always rendered hell, except in 1 
Cor. 15 : 55, where it is rendered grave. It could as 
well there be rendered hell, in the sense of the unseen, 
or under- world, as elsewhere. It never means grave, 
except by metonymy. In this way it is sometimes 
thus used; but literally it means the unseen, the abode 
of spirits from death till the resurrection, and by me- 
tonymy, the place of punishment, hell. So the Lexi- 
cons define it, and critics treat it, at least so far as be- 
ing the abode of spirits is concerned. 

Dr. George Campbell, sometimes quoted by Univer- 
salists, in commenting on hades says : " For the same 
reason that' it does violence to the original to translate 
the Hebrew, sheol, or the Greek, hades, hell, so it de- 
stroys the sense of many passages to translate it grave" 
He was a believer in the intermediate state. Lange 
(Introduction to Revelations) says : '* Hades, (sheol) 
the realm of the dead, must be kept entirely distinct 
from the pool of fire, gehenna y hell." 

From the lexicons we have the following definitions : 
Pickering, Hades : " The infernal regions ; hell ; 
death ; place or state of the dead ; Pluto ; invisible," 
etc, Kobinson, " Pluto's domain ; infernal regions ; 



ME. CARPENTER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 335 

orcus; the abode of the dead ; the Hebrew sheol signi- 
fied, in like manner, the under-world, which was held 
to be a vast subterranean place," etc. Donnegan, "In- 
visible ; place or state of the dead ; Pluto." Green- 
field, " Literally, unseen ; the invisible abode or man- 
sions of the dead j orcus ; the place of punishment, 
hell ; the grave ; t the lowest place or condition." 

The above definitions confirm our interpretation of 
the term ; and this Scripture, which we have had un- 
der review, proves that there is an impassible gulf in 
the next world, between the righteous and the wicked. 
The bearing of this argument on my proposition is ap- 
parent. 

VII. The destruction of the soul. 

I quote Matt 10 : 28 : 

" And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill 
the soul ; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and 
body in hell." 

Now, here, killing the body is something different 
from destroying the soul ; killing the body is one 
thing, destroying the soul is another thing. 

Again, Luke 12 : 4, 5 : 

"And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill 
the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will 
forewarn you whom ye shall fear : Fear him, which after he hath 
killed hath power to cast into hell ; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 

Mark then, " after he hath killed, hath power 
to cast into hell," or into gehenna, which is the word used 
here, and not hades. The Jews, who used the valley 
of Hinnom, could not take life ; and we are not aware 
that the Romans ever killed, and cast into the valley 
that lay southeast of Jerusalem. And it will be ob- 
served that it is the soul (psuche) that men cannot de- 
stroy, but God can. And this, too, is to be de- 
stroyed after the death of the body. Smith's Bible 
Dictionary, after giving the history of the word, as re- 
ferring to the celebrated valley near Jerusalem, says : 
" It became in later times the image of the place of 



336 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

everlastiug punishment, where ( the worm dieth not, and 
the fire is not quenched/ in which the Talmudists 
place the mouth of hell/' etc. He then adds : " In 
this sense (a place of everlasting punishment) the 
word is used by our blessed Lord in Matt. 5 : 29, 30 ; 
10:28; 22:15,33; Mark 9: 43,45; Luke 12 5," 
etc., referring to the identical passages, under consider- 
ation. Kitto, agreeing substantially with Smith, says : 
" It became to be regarded as a sort of type of hell." 
Parkhurst says : "Gehenna was, in our Saviour's time, 
used by the Jews for hell, the place of the departed. 
This appears from the word being thus applied by the 
Chaldee Targums, by the Jerusalem Targums, and that 
by Jonathan ben Uzziel. Prideaux, and other authori- 
ties, represent some of the Targums as going back as 
far as the days of Ezra, and certainly to the days of 
the Maccabees, and that they were highly regarded by 
the Jews in Christ's time, and had been for many 
years- before. 

Nothing is plainer, therefore, than that this term 
represented the place of the damned in the minds of 
those thus addressed by Christ. 

Again, the gehenna here spoken of, cannot be located 
in this world. Nor yet in hades, because in this 
the soul and body are separated after death. But 
in the place of which the Saviour speaks, the soul and 
body are to suffer together. It must, therefore, apply 
to the place of future endless punishment. [Time ex- 
pired.] 

ME. HUGHES' FIFTH REJOINDER. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — The first thing I shall 
do this morning, is to say something more on the words 
axon and aionios. You will remember that my friend 
says, that the word " endless " is the pivotal word in 
this proposition. Now, therefore, if he fails on that 



337 

word, he fails on his proposition. According to him, 
the doctrine of endless misery hangs on the meaning of 
the words aion, aidnios, in the New Testament. He 
assumes, also, that the meaning of these words in 
their literal signification, is " eternal ; " and so the most 
commonly received meaning of the word aidnios is to be 
understood in Matt. 25 : 46, his main proof-text. Now, 
I deny, that the natural and first meaning of the word 
is eternal duration ; and he must make that out, or he 
fails in his argument here. 

I will now read some additional authority on these 
words, aion, aidnios: 

Alexander Campbell gives the meaning of aion as 
follows : 

" Age, aion, [derived from aei, always, and on, being.] Its radical 
idea is indefinite duration." App. N. T., page 69. 

Dr. Albert Barnes says : 

" The word [aion] properly means age, an indefinitely long period 
of time; then perpetuity, ever, eternity, always being. The He- 
brews used the word olam in the same sense. It properly means age, 
duration." Com. Heb. 1 : 2. 

McKnight explains as follows : 

" These words being ambiguous, are always to be understood ac- 
cording to the nature and circumstances of the things to which they 
are applied." [And though he claims these words in support of endless 
punishment, yet he says :] " At the same time, I must be so candid as 
to acknowledge, that the use of these terms, " forever," " eternal," 
and " everlasting," in other passages of Scripture, shows that they who 
understand these words in a limited sense, when applied to punishment, 
put no forced interpretation upon them." Truth of the Gospel History, 
page 28. 

W. R. Alger says : 

" The Greek word, aionios — and the same is true of the corres- 
ponding Hebrew word — translated "everlasting" in the English 
Bible, has not in its popular usage the rigid force of eternal duration, 
but varies — is now applied to objects as evanescent as man's earthly 
life, now to objects as lasting as eternity. Its power in any given case 
is to be sought from the context and the reason of the things. * * 
* The Greek adjective rendered " everlasting," is etymologically, 
and by universal usage, a term of duration, but indefinite — its ex- 
tent of meaning depending on the subjects of which it is predicated. 
22 



338 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

Therefore, when Christ connects this word with the punishment of 
the wicked, it is impossible to say, with any certainty, judging by the 
language itself, whether he implies that those who die in their sins 
are hopelessly lost, perfectly irredeemable forever, or not — though 
the probabilities are very strongly in the latter direction. "Ever- 
lasting punishment may mean, in philosophical strictness, a punish- 
ment absolutely eternal, or may be a popular expression denoting, 
with general indefiniteness, a very long duration. Since in all Greek 
literature, sacred and profane, aionios is applied to things that end, 
ten times as often as it is to things that are immortal, no fair critic can 
assert positively that when it is connected with future punishment it 
has the stringent meaning of metaphysical endlessness." History of 
the Future Life, page 323. 

The Lexicographers define it thus : 

" Aion^ an age, a long period of time, indefinite duration, eternity ; 
a man's lifetime. Eis ton aiona, for a long time, forever, everlasting- 
ly, time, whether longer or shorter, past, present, or future ; also in 
the New Testament, present age, or men of the age, including the idea 
of their corruption or depravity. Aionios, of long duration, lasting, 
sometimes everlasting, perpetual, eternal, sometimes lasting through 
life, as aeternus, in Latin." Pickering's Lexicon. 

" Aion, time, a space of time, lifetime ; the age of man ; a long pe- 
riod of time ; eternity. The spinal marrow, eis ton aiona, to eternity ; 
aio?iios, of long duration, eternal." Donnegarts Lex. 

" Aion, a space or period of time, especially a lifetime, life ; Latin 
aevum ; also one's time of life, age, the age of man, an age, generation, 
long space of time, eternity ; like Latin, aevum, ton aiona, forever, and 
in plural, eis tous ionas ton aionion, unto ages of ages, forever and ever. 
New Testament, Gal. 1 : 5. Later, a space of time, clearly defined or 
marked out, an era, age, period of a dispensation. Aionios, lasting, 
eternal." Liddell & Scott's Lex. 

Aion, an age, a long period of time ; indefinite duration ; time, 
whether longer or shorter, past, present, or future ; also in the New 
Testament, the wicked men of the age ; also in the feminine gender, 
life, the life of man. Aionios, of long duration, lasting, sometimes, 
everlasting ; sometimes lasting through life, as aeternus, in Latin." 
Schreveliics' Lex., English Edition. 

" Aion, any space of time, whether longer or shorter, past, present, 
or future, to be determined by the persons or things spoken of, and the 
scope of the subjects ; the life or age of man ; any space in which we 
measure human life, from birth to death ; see Matt. 28 : 20 : 'I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' Sunteleiastou aionios, 
per omnem vitum, ' through your whole life.' Aionios, a definite and 
long period of time ; that is, a long continued, but still definite period 
of time." Schleusner's Lex., English Edition, abridged. 



ME. HUGHES' FIFTH EE JOINDER. 339 

I will now give the first definitions of the words 
aion and aionios, by the following authorities : 

Pickering. — "Aion, an age ; aionios, of long duration." / 

Donnegan. — " Aion, time ; aionios, of long duration." 

Liddeee & Scott. — " Aion, a space or period of time ; aionios, 

lasting. 

Schreveetus. — " Aion, an age ; aionios, of long duration." 
Scheettsner. — Aion, any space of time ; aionios, a definite and long 

period of time." 

Host. — " Aion, duration, epoch ; aionios, continual." 
Passow. — " Aionios, long continued." 
Hinks. — " Aion, a period of time ; aionios, lasting." 
Leutz. — " Aion, an age ; aionios, durable." 

Having before given the New Testament usage of 
the word aion, I will now give the Old Testament 
usage of the words "perpetual/' "everlasting," "for- 
ever," and " forever and ever." 

I find a " perpetual covenant " spoken of twice. I 
find the covenant with Noah for seed time and harvest, 
the covenant with Abraham, of circumcision, the Sab- 
bath, and observances peculiar to the law of Moses, 
called an everlasting covenant, ten times. 

I find the Passover, enjoined as a feast by an ordi- 
nance " forever," seven times. 

I find observances under the law of Mcses enjoined 
as " perpetual statutes," four times ; as an " everlasting 
statute," once ; as a " statute forever," twenty-two 
times. 

I find the priesthood under the law of MoseS, called 
" everlasting," and " forever," four times. 

Servitude under the law is said to be "forever," 
three times; a " servant forever," three times. Lep- 
rosy to cling " forever," once. 

The possession of the land of Canaan by the Jews is 
called " everlasting," three times ; the possession of 
Canaan "forever," nine times; "forever and ever," 
once. 



340 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

David's kingdom, to last " forever," his throne, and 
house, to be established " forever," fourteen times. 

I find the phrase " O king, live forever," seven 
times. 

The hills and mountains " perpetual," " lasting," and 
" everlasting," four times. The earth established, and 
to abide "forever," three times. 

I find Jerusalem spoken of as to be established, and 
to dwell %t forever," nine times. 

Jonah in the whale " forever," (three days and three 
nights) once. 

"From everlasting to everlasting," eight times. Cer- 
tainly not from eternity to eternity. " Blessed be the 
Lord God from everlasting to everlasting." That is, 
blessed be God from age to age, having reference to 
future time. 

I find u forever and ever," in a limited sense, in Jer. 
7: 7; 25: 5; Isa. 30: 8; Ps. 148: 5,6; Isa. 34: 10- 
17, six times. 

In all of this counting one hundred and ten times ; 
and the half is not yet told. 

I find the words everlasting and perpetual, applied 
to the seventy years Babylonian captivity, as " perpet- 
ual desolations," " everlasting confusion, that shall not 
be forgotten;" "an everlasting reproach, and a per- 
petual shame, that shall not be forgotten," in Jer. 25 : 
9-11 ; Jer. 20 : 11 ; and Jer. 23 : 39, 40. 

I find punishment under the figure of fire and brim- 
stone, t(5 be forever, in Isa. 34: 9, 10. Yet it means 
but the temporal destruction of the land of Idumea. 
" And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, 
and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land there- 
of shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quench- 
ed night nor day ; the smoke thereof shall go up for- 
ever ; from generation to generation it shall lie waste ; 
none shall pass through it forever and ever." This is 
certainly as strong language as any my brother has 



341 

found, but it does not mean endless punishment, but 
temporal only. Why do these words happen to mean 
so much more in his passages ? 

I claim that the word aionios did not mean endless in 
the days of Christ and the apostles, because cotempo- 
raneous authors did not so use it. 

Josephus applies the word to the imprisonment to 
which John the Tyrant was condemned by the Romans; 
to the reputation of Herod ; to the everlasting memo- 
rial he erected in rebuilding the temple, already de- 
stroyed, when he wrote, " the everlasting worship " in 
the temple. But he never uses the word as descriptive 
of endless punishment, but in giving the belief of the 
Jews on that subject, uses the word aidios. 

Dr. Mangey, in his edition of Philo, says that Philo 
never uses aionios for endless duration. Philo says : 
" 1 hose who promise certain things, and fail to per- 
form, are exposed to eternal punishment from those 
that they have injured." He in this uses the very 
terms of the Saviour, that my brother so much relies 
on, kolasis aionion. 

My position concerning these words is, that they can 
be applied to any period of time, if it be but three days 
and three nights, up to the eternity of God himself. 
They mean eternal when applied to God, and eternal 
when the nature and subjects of the things to which 
they are applied demand it. But in such cases it is 
the application that forces to this meaning, and 
not because of the natural force of the words them- 
selves. " They are all relative terms," says President 
Milligan. 

" As an example of the immense extremes which the context 
shows in the use of the word, compare language employed but a short 
distance from this latter passage, Deut. 32: 40: "I live forever," 
spoken of God, in such a way as to meali nothing less than the absolute 
or endless eternity. But it is the subject to which it is applied that 
forces to this, not any etymological necessity of the word itself." Prof. 
Lewis' Lange's Com. on Gen., Excursus, page 50. 



342 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

So also, Dr. E. Beecher. 

These words were not understood by Christians in 
the first centuries after Christ, as meaning endless. 
For Universalists, such as Clement, Origen, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia,and others, freely applied these words to 
punishment, even to punishment in the the future 
world, showing that they did not understand them in 
the sense of endless. And a better Greek scholar than 
Origen, never lived. 

Again, Annihilationists, such as Irenseus, and Justin 
Martyr, applied them to punishment in the future 
world, showing that they did not understand them to 
mean endless. 

Says Tayler Lewis : 

" These shall go away into the punishment [the restraint, impris- 
onment] of the world to come. That is all we can etymologically or 
exegetically make of the word in this passage, Matt. 25 : 46." Lange's 
Com. Gen., page 48. 

Now it must be perfectly clear to every one of you, 
that he cannot found any argument on these words, 
that will sustain his proposition. It must be perfectly 
plain to the commonest understanding, 'that the defini- 
tions by authorities and Lexicons, as well as the Bibli- 
cal use of them, are against him. He must prove in 
some other way, than by the use of these words as ap- 
plied to punishment, that u the Scriptures teach that 
those who die in willful disobedience to the gospel 
will suffer endless punishment." I defy him to prove 
it by the use of any of these words that he has intro- 
duced, whether the Hebrew olam, the Greek aion, aidn- 
ios, the English forever, everlasting, and eternal, or by 
any other word he may introduce in this discussion, 

I will now introduce in this connection my second 
negative argument. 

II. I object to the doctrine of endless punishment, 
because it is contrary to the express declarations of the 
Bible. 



343 

"For the Lord will not cast off forever ; but though he cause 
grief, yet he will have compassion according to the multitude of his 
mercies. For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of 
men." Lam. 3 : 31-33. 

While the prophet declares that God will not cast off 
forever, my friend's proposition affirms that he will. 
Both can not be true. One or the other must be false. 
If the prophet is right, the proposition is false. 

The reason given why God will not cast off forever, 
is the multitude of his mercies. He argurs from God's 
attributes, as I have done in •this discussion, and comes 
to the same conclusion ; a thing common in the Bible. 

" The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous 
in mercy. He will not always chide ; neither will he keep his anger 
forever." Ps.103: 8,9. 

" I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.'' 
Jer. 3 : 12. 

" He retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mer- 
cy." Mic. 7:18. 

Could anything be plainer, or be more positively 
contradictory in letter and spirit- to the doctrine of end- 
less misery ? 

" For I will not contend forever, neither will I always be wroth ; 
for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." 
Isa.57:.16. 

God himself negatives the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment. He will not contend forever. Were the 
proposition true, then God is false. Were God to turn 
against the souls of men, finally, irrevocably, eternally, 
and his anger wax hot and fierce in the full measure 
of his infinite might, annihilation would be the result. 
"He will not always be wroth, for the spirit should 
fail before him, and the souls he has made." My 
friend's task is to prove that God will cast off forever, 
and that God will contend forever ; while God declares 
that he will not. He is to prove that God will retain 
his anger forever, and that he will always be wroth, 
while God declares directly to the contrary. In view 
of all this, would it be strange if my friend should fail 



344 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

in his undertaking? Let God be true, though every 
man a liar ! 

I will now refer to some other things in the 
argument of my opponent. He refers to the doc- 
trine of an " unpardonable sin," in proof of his 
proposition. The " sin unto death spoken of in 1 John 
5 : 16, is a sin resulting in punishment by the death of 
the body ; and has nothing to do with future endless 
punishment. 

But the sin against the Holy Ghost is what he most- 
ly relies on to prove an unpardonable sin. These pas- 
sages, Matt. 12 : 31, 32 ; Mark 3 : 28, 29, I believe are 
Hebraisms ; common forms of speech in the New Tes- 
tament, which simply assert a greater difficulty in ob- 
taining pardon for this sin, than all others. A strictly 
literal interpretation of these passages comes nearer 
proving universal salvation, than the endless punishment 
of any. To make it a proof of endless punishment, it 
becomes necessary to make the declaration : " But the 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiv- 
en unto men," positive and unconditional. But that 
would make the first part of the verse also positive and 
unconditional : " All manner of sin and blasphemies 
shall be forgiven unto men." This would make it an 
unconditional forgiveness of all men, for all manner of 
sin and blasphemy. But neither of us believe in that. 
The sin against the Holy Ghost is only an exception 
for the time expressed in the phrase " neither in this 
world, nor in the world to come." The phrase " world 
to come," refers to the Christian age, as Dr. Clarke and 
many other commentators contend; but it does not 
comprehend all the Christian age ; for in that there 
are " ages." Paul says : " That in the ages to come, 
he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his 
kindness toward us by Jesus Christ." Eph. 2 : 7. 

Now there was to be an age of blindness to the Jews, 
that was to last until the fullness of the Gentiles came 



345 

in ; and I understand the Jews were the ones who com- 
mitted this sin against the Holy Ghost. Christ had just 
cast out a demon, by the power of the Spirit of God, 
and they said he did it by the power of Beelzebub, the 
prince of devils. They in doing that maligned the 
power by which Christ wrought the miracle ; and to 
them the Saviour's words apply. Mark says : u Be- 
cause they said, He hath an unclean spirit." Mark 3 : 
30. 

But was their blindness and stubborness to cling to 
them endlessly ? We will read from Kom. 11 : 7-12 : 

" What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seekethfor ; 
but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded, (accord- 
ing as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes 
that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear ; ) unto 
this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a 
trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them ; let their 
eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back al- 
way. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall ? God 
forbid ; but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gen- 
tiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the 
riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the 
Gentiles ; how much more their fullness ? " 

Now here the apostle inquires: "Have they stum- 
bled that they should fall ? " That is, never to rise 
again ? " God forbid ! " he answers, and then goes on 
to say, in verses 25, 26 : " For I would not, brethren, 
that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (lest ye 
should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness in 
part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gen- 
tiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved." 
Now that puts an end to their blindness, and shows that 
they are to be finally restored and forgiven. 

Besides, in connection with this circumstance as re- 
lated by Matthew, it is said that these same Jews asked 
a sign of Jesus. They wanted some miraculous evidence 
of the truth of his teachings, and he referred them to his 
death and resurrection, as the only sign that was to be 
given them. 



346 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

" But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous 
generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign be given 
it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas ; for as Jonas was three days 
and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three 
days and three nights in the heart. of the earth." Matt. 12 : 39, 40. 

Christ's death and resurrection was to be a sign unto 
them, even to these very men that had maligned the 
Holy Spirit. But why give them a sign, if they were 
never to be forgiven ? 

Again, when the Saviour was on the cross, suffering 
death, he prayed for his fiercest enemies, saying : " Fath- 
er, forgive them ; for they know not what they do." 
Luke 23 : 34. Mark now, that they too maligned the 
power by which Christ worked miracles, while he even 
hung upon the cross. 

" And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them 
derided him, saying, He saved others, let him save himself, if he be 
he Christ, the chosen of God." Luke 23 : 35. 

Christ prays for them, for their forgiveness ; and his 
prayer will be answered. This " bowing down the 
back alway ; " this long period of blindness to which 
Paul refers, fills all the meaning of the phrase, " Hath 
never forgiveness,'' or literally, " hath not forgiveness 
to the age." And there will be an end of their " eter- 
nal (aionion) damnation," when the " alway " is ended, 
and "all Israel saved." 

He quotes also, Heb. 6 : 4-6. The apostle here 
speaks of the impossibility of renewing apostates in 
human view only. Not that it was impossible with 
God. Christ declares in human view the impossibility 
of the salvation of certain rich men. 

" Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, that a 
rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again 
I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a 
needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When 
his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, ^ saying, Who 
then can be saved ? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, 
With men this is impossible ; but with with God all things are possi- 
ble." Matt. 19 : 23-26. 

The passage in Jude 7, which speaks of the cities of 



MR. hughes' fifth eejoindee. 347 

Sodom and Gomorrah suffering the vengeance of an 
eternal fire, Dr. McKnight renders in this way : " Hav- 
ing undergone the vengeance of an eternal fire." He 
puts the suffering in the past tense, you will observe. 
Now if they have " undergone " it, it is ended, and the 
eternal fire has gone out. It is not a fire that is to burn 
endlessly ; but the fire that " turned the cities of Sodom 
and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an 
overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that 
after should liye ungodly." 2 Peter 2 : 6. 

Next he quotes 1 Cor. 16 : 22 : " If any man love not 
the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maran-athaP 
Now the brother says that means a curse to an endless 
separation from Christ. To show his mistake, I will 
read from Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles 
of St, Paul, vol. 2, p. 67, note : 

" Buxtorf (Lex. Chald. 827) says it was a part of a Jewish curs- 
ing formula, from the Prophecy of Enoch (Jude 14) ; but this view 
appears to be without foundation. In fact, it would have been most 
incongruous to have blended together a Greek word {anathema) with 
a Hebrew phrase (maran-atha) and to use the compound as a formula 
of execration. This was not done till (in later ages of the Church) 
the meaning of the terms themselves was lost." 

That defeats the brother's position here, for these au- 
thorities whose competency will not be questioned, say 
that it would have been incongruous to have blended 
the Greek word and the Hebrew phrase into a formula 
of execration, and that it was not done until in later 
times when the meaning of the terms themselves was 
ost. Let the apostle define his own words. I quote 
Eom. 9:3: " For I could wish that myself were ac- 
cursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen ac- 
cording to the flesh." Here is the same word anathema. 
Now what does Paul mean ? Could the apostle wish 
himself to be cursed in the sense of eternal perdition, 
for the sake of his brethren ? If not, my brother fails 
in the application of his quotation ; and I say he cannot 



348 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

maintain so monstrous an absurdity ! Paul was willing 
for their sakes to be cut off from the congregation, be 
counted as an alien, but not to be punished to all eter- 
nity in hell fire for their sakes. 

Bro. Carpenter endorses a quotation from Dr. George 
Campbell, which says that, " For the same reason that 
it does violence to the original to translate the Hebrew 
sheol, or the Greek hades, hell, so it destroys the sense 
of many passages to translate it grave.'' Very well. 
And he also says that the word hades cannot, except by 
metonymy, mean the grave. Well, I will say to him 
that I do not believe that it ever means the grave ; but 
" the state of the dead without regard to their goodness 
or badness, their happiness or misery ; " as Dr. George 
Campbell defines it. But can it ever mean a place of 
endless misery ? That is the question. Now we read 
in Hosea 13 : 14: " I will ransom them from the power 
of the grave (sheol) ; I will redeem them from death. O 
death, 1 will be thy plagues ; O grave, (sheol) I will be 
thy destruction." Sheol, then is to deliver up its dead, 
and is to be destroyed. 

Bro. Carpenter also admits that hades will be de- 
stroyed. He has quoted " death and hell (hades) deliv- 
ered up the dead which were in them." " And death 
and hell (hades) were cast into the lake of fire." Rev. 
20 : 13, 14. If he admits that hades will be destroyed, 
so must he admit that sheol will also be destroyed ; for 
they are corresponding words. And this is what the 
Bible distinctly asserts of them both. So all the hell 
there is in the Old Testament is eliminated by his own 
admission, and so also eleven instances in the New Tes- 
tament where his hell is hopelessly lost ! I think that 
is getting rid of his hells pretty fast ! But more than 
that. Tartarus, rendered hell in 2 Peter 2 : 4, is a de- 
partment of hades, according to Greenfield, whom the 
brother quotes. So, of course, when hades is destroyed, 



349 

tartarus will be also. But lie also notices gehenna, now 
his only remaining hell. Now, he brings in authorities 
here, who assert that gehenna is not a part of hades, 
that it is tartarus. Then when sheol, hades and tartarus 
are abolished, gehenna is also done away with ; and he 
must find some other place for his endless misery, if he 
can! 

I did not admit that the parable of the Rich Man 
and Lazarus applied to the future world at all ; but I 
did say that on the brother's own ground, it proved 
that, wherever it did apply, there was some good there. 
That if it was in hell, then there was some good in hell! 
So that on his own showing, as he says he was in hell, 
there is some good even in his hell ! 

But he is not sure that it is a parable ; and he says if 
it is a parable it is founded on facts. But will he take 
notice of " the great gulf that is fixed " between Abra- 
ham and the Rich Man. I wonder if he believes that 
there is one department in hades that is heaven, and an- 
other that is hell, and that the gulf is fixed so that they 
cannot pass from the one department to the other ? that 
is to keep the righteous out of hell ! Is that all literal, 
founded on facts ? Is it a fact that there are literal 
flames in hell ? that their literal tongues are parched ? 
and that they are asking but for a single drop of water 
from the tip of a literal finger ? Does he take the water 
and the finger, and the flame all to be literal ? I hope 
he will tell us just what he does mean. 

But the passage refers to the teachings of Moses and 
the prophets. Abraham said "they have Moses and 
the prophets ; let them hear them." He evidently 
means to assert that Moses and the prophets warned 
them against the hell the Rich Man suffered. But they 
never use the term hell in the sense of my brother. 
The word " hell " is only found in Moses' writings in 
Deut. 32 : 21-26 : 
f " They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God ; 



350 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

they have provoked me to anger with their vanities ; and I will 
move them to jealousy with those which are not a people ; I will 
provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. For a fire is kindled 
in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall con- 
sume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of 
themountains. I will heap mischiefs upon them ; I will spend 
mine arrows upon them. They shall be burned with hunger, and 
devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction ; I will also 
send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of 
the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both 
the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of 
gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make 
the remembrance of them to cease from among men." 

But Moses does not mean hell here in the sense of 
punishment in the future world ; for it is applied to the 
punishment of the Jews at the time of the calling of the 
Gentiles, in exactly the same sense as used in the para- 
ble. It is never so used in the Old Testament ; and I 
challenge brother Carpenter to produce a passage where 
it is so used if he can. 

I want to say a word now about the proposition ; be- 
cause he so insists that the heathen are not in the prop- 
osition. But I showed that they were in the first prop- 
ositisn, for they are a considerable part of all men, and 
" all men " were in it. -Now I say that the heathen can- 
not be saved according to the principles by which he 
attempts to sustain his proposition. So I test the prin- 
ciples of his proposition by their case, and involve it 
in an absurdity. 

Well, at length, he proposes to enlighten me about 
the heathen ; and so he quotes Rom. 2 : 11-15, in refer- 
ence to the heathen being a law unto themselves. The 
heathen have the law of conscience, the light of nature, 
and the Spirit of God by the light of truth, giving them 
some degree of knowledge of right and wrong. But, 
mark you, by that same law, every one of them is con- 
demned, without a single exception. For, says the apos- 
tle, " all have sinned, and come short of the glory of 
God." Rom. 3 : 2&. Again he says : "For we have be- 
fore proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all 



351 

under sin." Rom. 3:9. Now, if they are all under 
sin in this world, how is he going to have them saved in 
the future world ? He says there is no opportunity for 
salvation in the future, and so they must be damned in 
hell to all eternity, for not believing a gospel never 
preached to them. But if he opens a door of opportu- 
nity for them in the future world, then there is another 
horn of a dilemma that gores him terribly. That is 
what makes him so uneasy about what I say in regard to 
the heathen. He did not want tbem in his proposition, 
because he did not know what to do with them. There 
is all his trouble. He says this is a dark question, and 
there is very little said about it in the Scriptures. But 
let us see about that. I affirm that the Scriptures speak 
about the salvation of the heathen and tell how they 
are to be saved. They are to be saved by faith. In 
Gal. 3 : 8, I read ; 

" And the Scripture foreseeing jthat God would justify the heathen 
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In 
thee shall all nations be blessed." 

They are to be "justified through faith." But they 
have not the means of faith here, and so, therefore, it 
must be offered them in the future world. This bless- 
ing comes to them under the promise made to Abraham 
which declares in him all the nations are to be blessed. 
There is, then, something in the Scriptures in regard to 
the heathen, after all. 

I read again, Rom. 3 : 30 : 

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by 
faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." 

Paul here declares that the heathen are to be "justi- 
fied, through faith." He knows of no other way. It is 
all clear on my theory, and proposition, but all very 
dark to my brother. The fault is with his system, 
which is all out of joint^and full of absurdities. 

But I must now say something about 2 Thes. 1 : 4-10, 
introduced by brother Carpenter in his first speech. He 



352 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

wants to know how the Thessalonians, way over in Eu- 
rope, so many hundreds of miles from Jerusalem, could 
be concerned in the destruction of Jerusalem. He says 
they were not troubled by the Jews, but by their own 
countrymen, as the Jewish Christians in Judea had suf- 
fered by theirs. But he will be informed as to that if 
he will turn and read Acts 17 : 5-8 : 

u But the Jews Avhich believed not, moved with envy, took unto them 
certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and 
set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and 
sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them 
not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the 
city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come 
hither also ; whom Jason hath received, and these all do contrary to 
the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. 
And they troubled the people, and the rulers of the city, when they 
heard these things." 

It is true that they were troubled by their own coun- 
trymen, but the Jews were the instigators of the trou- 
ble. That is the reason why they were interested in 
their overthrow — when their power was broken, 
and they became a " by-word and a hissing " among all 
nations. 

But the Saviour was to come in " naming fire, taking 
vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not 
the gospel of Christ." But is this his coming at the 
end of the world ? Is there anything said about death, 
the resurrection, or his giving up his kingdom, in that 
passage? Does it teach that those "whocfo'ein willful 
disobedience to the gospel shall suffer endless punish- 
ment ? Not a word of it ! It speaks of his coming 
here where he shall " recompense tribulation to those 
who troubled the Thessalonian Christians." A partic- 
ular class, you will notice, who were to be " punished 
with an everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord and from the glory of his power." Thus he punished 
the Jews, overthrowing Jerusalem, and dispersing them 
among the Gentiles. But is there anything in this pas- 
sage like going away from the presence of the Lord into 



, MR. CARPENTER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 353 

an eternal hell ? Is it possible for men to get away 
from the presence of the Lord f It is only in an accommo- 
dated, special sense, that we can say that men go out 
from the presence of the Lord. That special sense has 
its application here, and not to the future world. So a 
Jew, to go out of the land of Judea, was to go out of the 
presence of the Lord. Jonah attempted to flee into the land 
of Tarshisfc. "from the presence of the Lord." Jonah 1 ; 
3. God said to the Jews in reference to the Babylonian 
captivity : " Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly 
forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city I gave 
you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence ; 
and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a 
perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." Jer. 23 : 
39, 40. If the seventy years' Babylonian captivity could 
be called an " everlasting reproach," why not their pres- 
ent punishment an " everlasting punishment ? " [Time 
expired. 

ME CAEPENTEE'S SIXTH SPEECH. 

Brethren Moderators : — My opponent again la- 
bors the words axon and aidnios. He says I hang the 
doctrine of endless punishment on the meaning of these 
words alone. This is by no means true. I have pro- 
ven it by several distinct lines of proof in which these 
words formed no part of the argument ; and I shall 
present several others of the same sort. Still I could 
well afford to risk the whole issue on the use of these 
words in the Scriptures. I have shown from Aristotle, 
the Lexicons,and other high authorities, that the origi- 
nal and primary meaning of axon — derived from aei, 
always, and on, being, hence, always being — is endless 
duration. That, though in later ages, this word was 
often used in a less determinate sense, yet it always ex- 
hausts the period to which it is applied. To this every 
authority quoted in this discussion by either of us, sub- 
23 



354 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

stantially agrees. They all agree that aion does some- 
times, at least, signify eternity, or endless duration. I 
then proved by the highest authorities that the ad- 
jective aionios, the word with which we really have 
principally to do, retains only the idea of endless du- 
ration ; that it never, unless by the figure of hyperbole, 
expresses limited duration, but always infinite ; that 
this is its uniform use in the New Testament, where it 
is applied more than fifty times to God, Christ, eternal 
life, etc. I also proved by the very highest authorities 
known that when aion or aionios, singular or plural, 
is preceded by the preposition eis, the phrase,without ex- 
ception, means endless duration. I, likewise, proved 
by like authorities, that in the duplicated or compound 
forms these words, and also the Hebrew olam invaria- 
signify infinite duration. 

We cited a number of passages where these forms 
are applied to the future punishment of the wicked. 
To all this he has attempted no adequate reply ; but 
tries to cover his defeat and divert your minds by 
scrapping from various authors, who, in the main, only 
affirm what we stated in the outset, that aion and olam 
are sometimes used in an appropriated sense, but even 
then aie strong words of duration, and exhaust the pe- 
riod to which they are applied. 

He quotes from Alexander Campbell on these words, 
and yet Campbell built arguments upon these very 
words similar to those I am presenting. We have be- 
fore seen what terrible perversions my opponent made 
of Bro. Campbell's remarks concerning the setting up 
of the kingdom, the ministration of angels, the com- 
ing of Christ at the destruction of Jerusale oi ; and now 
we have like perversions of his language concerning 
the use of these words. Barnes, McKnight, and oth- 
ers, fare little better in the hands of my brother. By 
his use of these authorities whose positions are known 
to be pointedly opposed to what he is trying to prove 



MR. carpenter's SIXTH SPEECH. 355 

from them, you can judge of his use of the Scriptures. 
Yet he blandly tells us he don't scrap or misrepresent 
authors ! No, not he ! Judeas credat, non ego ! Nor 
will you credit his claims here ; their erroneousness is 
too transparent. 

I also showed, as in Matt. 25 : 46, that aionios is ap- 
plied alike to the future happiness of the righteous 
and the future punishment of the wicked, and. that 
the sentence containing this terrible word will be pro- 
nounced beyond the resurrection, and at the time when 
they enter the final state beyond which, as my oppo- 
nent acknowledges, there is none other ; and in which, 
as we have proven, there can be no change. But our 
arguments on the use of these words stands unrefuted; 
and will appear in the published report, and I can well 
afford to abide that publication and the verdict of your 
memories. 

He next throws in what he is pleased to denominate 
his second argument, namely, that the doctrine of end- 
less punishment is contrary to the Bible. Bat this is 
just what we gave him two full days to prove under 
the first proposition, and which he most signally failed 
to do. But he quotes Lam. 3 : 31-33 : " The Lord 
will not cast off forever," etc. He also quotes Ps. 103 : 
8, 9, and some kindred passages. But his talk on 
these is only a rehash of what we have several times 
refuted : tor we have shown the conditionality of all 
these promises. We have shown, too, that God will 
have no new attributes, and that no argument can be 
predicated for the future upon God's attributes that 
does not apply with equal force to the present, and we 
have seen how the present stands. 

He refers to the sin for which we are not to pray, 
mentioned in 1 John 5 : 16, and thinks that it refers to 
the death of the body as a result of the transgressions. 
We introduced it to prove that there is at least one sin 
for which we are not to pray, seeing it cannot be par- 



356 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

doned, and thus by implication, since the sin is not to 
be forgiven, the one committing it can never be recon- 
ciled to God. This stands unrefuted. 

He disposes of Matt. 12 ; 31, 32, and Mark 3 : 28, 29, 
which treat of the sin against the Holy Ghost, by say- 
ing they are mere Hebraisms. Well, really, that is a 
very easy way of disposing of Scriptures that cannot be 
harmonized with his absurd theory ! But the audience 
had a right to expect more than this from him. Hence 
to them his defeat here is obvious. But he does resume 
sufficiently to say that when the Saviour says in the 
first part of the clause : "All manner of sin and blas- 
phemy shall be forgiven unto men," that he asserts that 
all sins shall be forgiven. But if the Saviour had 
stopped there, my opponent's point would be poorly 
taken, as it would only affirm the forgiveness of all 
hind of sins ; but would then be subject to the obedience 
required from the sinner, which obedience many do not 
render, hence cannot be saved. But what kind of treat- 
ment of the Saviour's words is this ? It is in keeping 
with my opponent's perversions of the language of Bro. 
Campbell and others. He snatches a clause of an un- 
finished sentence, and tries to force it into his service. 
If he had only had Adam and Eve as his clients, as he 
now seems to have the heathen, he could have argued 
that God had said: " You may eat of every tree in the- 
garden," and as to the little clause, " but of the tree of 
knowledge of good and evil thou mayest not eat," that 
is only a " Hebraism ! " What learning ! what logic ! 
Are both Bacon and the school-master abroad ? Look 
at the passages under consideration, and you will see 
that the " shall not be forgiven unto men," is in the 
same sentence with that portion which he quoted. But 
he tries again to break the force of my statement con- 
cerning his favorite rendering, " Jewish nor Christian 
age," that the two embraced the only ages which the 
characters mentioned could have to do ; by quoting pas- 



ME. CARPENTER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 357 

sages in which the word ages occurs. But, mark you, 
the Jewish, as well as the Christian dispensation, was 
susceptible of minor divisions; but in this passage 
both are used generically to embrace the whole. Hence 
the Christian age was to embrace all the time that Christ 
is mediator, but during that time these parties could not 
receive forgiveness. This fixes their doom irrevocably. 
Bro. Hughes feels his defeat here, hence his efforts to 
evade. 

He quotes from Rom. 11 : 7-12, and other passages to 
prove that all will be saved. But these Scriptures teach 
no such doctrine. "All Israel are to be saved ; " but 
what Israel ? The apostle says it is constituted of those 
having the faith of Abraham. The fullness of the in- 
iquity of the Gentiles shall come in, and of the Jews 
who are then alive, there shall be a general returning to 
the Lord. But this leaves many Jews and Gentiles un- 
saved. The whole scene of turning, having faith, being 
spiritual Israel, the seed of Abraham, etc., all belongs 
to this world, and to time, and* not to eternity, as he 
would like to have you infer. So my brother has not 
yet found " an end of eternal." This argument upon 
the sin against the Holy Spirit environs him with a log- 
ical chain he can never break. 

But my opponent seems inclined to be "true to his cli- 
ents," and so again brings up the case of the heathens. 
What would he have done in this discussion if it had not 
been for the heathen, baptism, and other outside issues ! 
Our proposition reads, "those who die in willful disobedi- 
ence to the gospel ; " and my opponent, in his first speech, 
told us that u man's responsibility includes and necessi- 
tates the idea of his knowledge of the law and his ability 
to obey the law in its requirements." Now, are these 
conditions met in the case of the heathen ? He knows 
they are not. He knows as well as any of us that this 
whole matter is foreign to the question. But he is deter- 
mined, if possible, to get me to occupy my time upon 



358 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

the heathen, baptism, or some such question, and by 
some such ruse to draw me from the question in hand ; 
but I am not the man to be thus diverted. Bro. Hughes, 
I know it hurts you to be defeated at every point that 
is pertinent to the question, but you must bear it pa- 
tiently, and hereafter abandon your untenable theory 
and all its perplexities ! 

Then, there is the Rich Man and Lazarus. As he 
passes over that again, he may tell us who, upon his the- 
ory, the " five brethren " are. In my discussion with 
Elder B. F. Snook, at the very last, when I had no time 
to reply, he said that the five brethren represented the 
five Jewish sects, and that any school-boy ought to know 
that. I hope my brother will tell us here about that, 
and not do as brother Snook did, wait to the very last 
so there will be no chance to answer him. There seems 
to be some practical difficulties around brother Snook's 
theory. When the Jews were scattered and Jerusalem 
destroyed, these sects were destroyed also. How then 
did they remain so that the Rich Man could pray for 
them ? And, as the " five brethren " would represent 
all the Jews, then who was the Rich Man and who was 
Lazarus ? I wish brother Hughes would try his hand 
on that curl, and straighten out a few of brother Snook's 
perplexities. 

He refers to hades. I have shown that hades and its 
Hebrew representative, sheol, were used by metonymy to 
represent the grave ; but in the Jewish sense, they 
meant literally the unseen world, the abode of spirits, but 
I did not say that gehenna is a part of hades. 

But the brother does not admit a material resurrec- 
tion, and therefore does not believe in a coming out of 
the grave. But he says hades and sheol are to be de- 
stroyed ; but the " lake of fire " into which they are to 
be cast is not to be destroyed ; at least I have not found 
any account of its destruction. And hades is not used 
for the grave, except by metonymy. 



MR. CARPENTER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 359 

In reference to the anathema of 1 Cor. 16 : 22, he 
quotes from Conybeare and Howson ; but I do not see 
that they are against me. That quotation is very far 
from defeating my position, brother Hughes ! 

He quotes Paul as wishing himself accursed for his 
brethren's sake. I have taken the trouble to mark in 
my Greek Testament all the places where this word 
anathema occurs, and I find it used there as follows : 

" And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We 
have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing 
until we have slain Paul." Acts 23 : 14. 

" For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for 
my by brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." Kom. 9 : 3. 

" Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by 
the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed : and that no man can say 
that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor. 12 : 3. 

" If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema 
maran-atha." 1 Cor. 16 : 22. # 

" But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gos- 
pel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him 
be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man 
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let 
him be accursed." Gal. 1 : 8, 9. 

Now here are six occurrences of this word anathema 
in the New Testament, and in no instance is it intimated 
that it is used in any modified sense. Our best authori- 
ties are agreed that it is from ana, up, and tithami, set 
or fixed, said of anything that is " irredeemably conse- 
crated," " devoted," " irrevocably fixed," as an offering 
set up in the temple, that could not be redeemed." Now 
when Paul uses the term in Rom. 9 : 2, " I could wish 
that I myself were accursed (anathema) from Christ, for 
my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh," he 
used it in its ordinary meaning. But you will observe 
that he does not say that he actually did so wish, but 
only his strong inclination to do so on account of his af- 
fection for his kinsmen. But whether Paul meant a 
cutting off from the fellowship of the Church, a cutting 
off from the earth, or a cutting off from Heaven at the 
judgment is not essential to my purpose. In either 



360 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

case it would be without hope of restoration, and that is 
rny argument. But in 1 Cor. 16 : 22, the maran-atha 
(the Lord coming, or when the Lord comes) fixes the 
time. It fixes the time, too, at that future coming be- 
yond which my brother has acknowledged there will be 
no change of character. The anathema expresses (in its 
evil sense) the cutting off or consecration without redemp- 
tion. This passage fixes both the time and the irrevoca- 
ble character of the sentence, and from this argument 
any opponent cannot escape. His expressions of horror 
and appeals for sympathy only testify to the weakness 
of his cause. 

Subsequently it came to have an accommodated sense 
like other words. And to-day it is, among Catholics 
and others, the heaviest method of cursing. The Pope 
pronounces his curses by the anathema. So that the 
passage will stand, and I am willing to abide by it. 
What Paul referred to was endless separation from 
Christ, not that he really wished that for himself, but 
that in terms of the strongest assurance he wished to ex- 
press his deep love for his kindred in the flesh, and he 
says : " I could wish myself accursed (anathema einai) 
from Christ for my brethren." To make him mean less 
is to take away the force of his language. To make 
him say that he was willing to be stigmatized or pun- 
ished a little, and for a little time, for their sake, robs 
the language of that strong assurance he intended to 
convey. No ; that which he was almost inclined to de- 
sire was to share their fate, whatever might be its char- 
acter, if even an endless cutting off from Christ. This 
gives infinite force to his language and was worthy of 
his noble nature. 

He says the Bible declarations are against my propo- 
sition. That is the very thing he ought to have proved. 
He has spent two whole days in trying to prove his 
proposition and failed, and I do not think he is go- 
ing to succeed any better in the discussion of this prop- 



ME. CAEPENTEE'S SIXTH SPEECH. 361 

osition. Perhaps, with a little assistance, he may be 
able to succeed. 

He has spent very considerable time here on the 
meaning of the word aionios, etc., to show that it does 
not mean eternity, except in a modified sense. I think 
I have said enough here on the meaning of the original 
words. I have showed that they are used in some forms 
in which they always mean eternity, in which they are 
not used except in the absolute sense, and that they are 
applied in this form to future punishment. And if nec- 
essary, I might rest the argument on the use of these 
terms in the original, as applied to future punishment in 
the New Testament Scriptures. But my proposition 
does not depend upon the meaning of aionios. He would 
like to get me off my other arguments, and on to aionios, 
because, you know, he has something to read on that, 
and so keep up appearances. 

My opponent refers to McKnight's rendering of the 
passage in 2 Peter 2 : 6, respecting the punishment of 
the Sodomites, and would place it in the past tense. But 
the participle in the original there used is rendered 
present ; it is so rendered in the common version, Bi- 
ble Union, Wilson, Rotherham, and all the translations 
and commentaries now before me — about a dozen in 
number. My brother cannot break the force of my ar- 
gument upon that passage by this false criticism to 
which McKnight would seem to give some coloring. 

I am now at liberty to resume my direct argument. 

VIII. The General Scope of the Sceiptuees 

SUSTAINS THE PEOPOSITION I AM DISCUSSING. 

A man's character is often determined less by specific 
acts, or characteristics, than by the general scope or 
drift of his behavior. In like manner we often judge 
of the doctrine of a book. Looking at the Bible from 
this standpoint, its scope is most evident. There is a 
God and there is a Devil. There are Holy and there 
are Fallen Angels. There is a Heaven and a Hell. 



362 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

There are good and bad men here. There are the right- 
eous and the unrighteous in death. There are the just 
and the unjust in the resurrection. There are the sheep 
and the goats in the judgment. There is " everlasting" 
life and there is also "eternal/' or everlasting death. Now, 
as illustrating these distinctions, I select at random a 
few passages : 

" Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed 
are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peace- 
makers, for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are 
they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the 
kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5 : 7-10. 

" Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your 
calling and election sure ; for if ye do these things, ye shall never 
fall ; for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly 
into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 
2. Peter 1 : 10, 11. 

" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which 
according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a live- 
ly hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an in- 
heritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, re- 
served in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through 
faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." 1 Peter 
1:3-5: 

" In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predesti- 
nated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after 
the counsel of his own will, that we should be to the praise of his 
glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after 
that he heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation : in 
whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit 
of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemp- 
tion of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 
AVherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and 
love unto all the saints," etc. Eph. 1 : 11-14. 

Also the following passages from Revelations : 

" He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto 
the churches : To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the 
tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. 2 : 7. 

" Here is the patience of the saints ; here are they that keep the 
commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a 
voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead 
which die in the Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith the Spirit, that 
they may rest from their labors, and their works do follow them." 
14 : 12, 13. 

" Blesssed are they that do his commandments, that they may 



ME. CARPENTER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 363 

have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates 
into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremong- 
ers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh 
a lie." 22 : 14, 15. 

" Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer ; behold the 
devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried ; and 
ye shall have tribulation ten days ; be thou faithful unto death, and 
I will give thee a crown of life." 2 : 10. 

AlsoHeb.ll : 35: 

" Women received their dead raised to life again ; and others were 
tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better 
resurrection." 

Thus we might read for hours in the same strain, 
showing the Bible tenor on this question ; but this must 
suffice. Now I may ask, Why are blessings pronounced 
on the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peace-mak- 
ers, if there are not others excluded from these bless- 
ings ? Why is it said that the pure in heart shall see 
God, unless it is also true that the impure in heart shall 
not see him, in the sense of abiding in his peaceful pres- 
ence ? Why are special favors given to those who trust 
in Christ, if there are not those to whom these favors 
are not extended ? Why do our Masonic brethren have 
their pass- words, and signs, and grips, but to distinguish 
them from others ? If all men were to be admitted to 
their lodges then they would be of no use at all. So 
also with these Bible distinctions between men. You 
will observe, too, that the passages quoted from Rev. 
22 : 14, 15, Mr. Thayer (Universalist) refers beyond the 
time of the resurrection. By the way, Lange, in his 
commentary on Rev. 3:11, says, in regard to Christ's 
" coming quickly," there spoken of: " This quickly, or 
soon, is ever being more wearisomely protracted, in the 
judgment of modern exegetes." 

It is important also to notice that the Book of Reve- 
lations was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
and hence its predictions cannot refer to that event. 
And Ave have seen that some of these passages are thus 
conceded by Universalists themselves. 



364 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Lange, in his introduction to Revelations, thor- 
oughly reviews the whole discussion in respect to its 
date, led on by the untrusworthy Guerike, and shows 
conclusively, that the work was written under the reign 
of Domitan, or about A. D. 96. Smith's Bible Dic- 
tionary says : " The date of Revelations is given by 
the great majority of critics as A. D. 95-97." He then 
refers to the testimony of Irenseus, Eusebius, Clement, 
Origen, etc., and concludes that it must have been writ- 
ten during the reign of Domitan, or about that time. 
He then adds : " Unsupported by any historical evi- 
dence, some commentators have put forth the conjecture 
that it was written as early as the time of Nero." 

IX. Scriptural Antithesis. 

The law of antithesis is that the members shall be 
equal — that they shall balance as the beams of a scale 
when in poise. Mr. Skinner, in his debate with A. 
Campbell, ( p. 194) says : " I have never denied or 
opposed the doctrine of antithesis." Then if the one 
member be literal and eternal, so also must be the other." 

I quote Rom. 2 : 510: 

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto 
thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the right- 
eous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to 
his deeds ; to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek 
for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life ; but unto them 
that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unright- 
eousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon ev- 
ery soul of man that doeth evil ; of the Jew first, and also of the 
Gentile ; But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh 
good ; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." 

Now, notice here, " eternal life" — " indignation and 
wrath." " Tribulation and anguish" — "glory, honor, 
peace." The one, then, on the principle of antithesis, is 
as extensive as the other. 

" And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that 
perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they 
might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong de- 
lusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned 



MR. CARPENTER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 365 

who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 
2 Thes. 2 : 10-12. 

Here the antithesis is between "saved" and "perish.'* 

" My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, 
and I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall never perish, nei- 
ther shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which 
gave them me is greater than all ; and no man is able to pluck them 
out of my Father's hand." John 10 : 27-29. 

Here it is " eternal life" and "perish. 

" What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now 
ashameci? for the end of those things is death. But now being made 
free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto 
holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, 
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jeuss Christ our Lord." 
Eom. 6 : 21-23. 

Here it is " death" and " eternal" or " everlasting life." 

Observe here that temporal death and eternal life do 
not balance. In Matt. 25th, already quoted, we have 
the "sheep" the "goats" the "rigid hand" the 
" left hand" and " everlasting punishment " — -" life eter- 
nal." And in Dan. 12 : 2, also already quoted, we have 
" everlasting life " — " shame and everlasting contempt." 
You remember, in reference to that passage in Daniel : 
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth 
shall awake, some to everlasting life," etc., that I called 
upon my brother to show if the phrase " awaking from 
the dust of the earth " was ever used for any other than 
a literal resurrection, and he did not do it. And so my 
argument stands, that at the resurrection some shall 
awake to " everlasting life," and some to " shame and ev- 
erlasting contempt." 

X. The death penalty ; Law and pardon. 

But before proceeding with my direct argument, I 
want to introduce some statements here showing the 
views of our Universalist friends on this matter. And 
I would observe here that I hold that probation is lim- 
ited to this life. The probation of the antediluvians 
was limited to a specific time, and when they had filled 
out that time they perished by the flood. Perhaps he 



366 SECOND PEOPOSITIOK. 

may call that a temporal penalty. Well, so let it be. 
But now for our Universalist friends. Old-school 
Universalists taught unconditional future salvation. 
Pro and Con, p. 63 : " There are in the Scriptures 
unquestionably, some conditional promises ; these all 
however respect our situation in time, and in no case, 
extend their reference to eternity." I. D. Williamson, 
in his Exposition of Universalism,p. 64, says : "Hu- 
man agency cannot affect it, [the future salvation] nor 
can it depend upon anything a man can do or believe." 
S. P. Carlton says (Carleton and Moore's Debate, p. 
35) : " Did God ever teach you to be careful about 
your future destiny ? All anxiety about our future 
destiny is folly." 

These specimens will suffice. I now turn to my ar- 
gument. 

Blackstone has well defined law as a " rule of ac- 
tion." The violation of law is sin. (1 John 3:4; 
Rom. 4 : 15.) Man has ever been under divine law. 
Law grants privileges and imposes prohibitions. "Thou 
mayest," and " Thou mayest not," constitute the first 
penal code on earth. If thou obeyest, thou shalt en- 
joy and live ; if thou disobeyest, thou shalt suffer and 
die. These were the rewards and penalties affixed. In 
Gen. 2 : 17, we read that God said to Adam : " But of 
the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not 
eat of it ; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt 
surely die." Now it matters little to my argument 
whether this death penalty was temporal, or spiritual, 
or both. If spiritual, as it stood unsupplimented, it 
would necessarily separate man from his Maker eter- 
nally. If temporal, since Adam, as far as the record 
shows, only knew to walk with God in the garden, it 
would likewise be a threat to Adam's mind of eternal 
separation from God, the punishment would be endless 
in the nature of the case, as it then stood to Adam. 
The supplimental promise concerning Christ, if indeed 



MR. CARPENTER^ SIXTH SPEECH. 367 

Gen. 3 : 15 contains such, was not added till after the 
Fall. We repeat, therefore, that the very first law- 
given to man had in it, as it then stood, endless pun- 
ishment, and it must forever have remained such, had 
it not in mercy been supplimented by the promise of 
Christ as a Saviour. But those who are not saved by 
Christ remain under the eternal condemnation. Christ 
saves, or redeems, all from the grave by his resurrec- 
tion, but he saves, in the sense of pardon, only through 
the merits of his shed blood, as secured through the 
gospel. 

Christ is called the Redeemer, that is, the Ransom- 
payer — the one that buys back. Man as a creature 
whose whole capabilities belonged to God by right of 
creation, had nothing with which to purchase himself 
or anybody else — he could not in time, or eternity, re- 
deem himself from the curse of a single infraction of 
the divine law. But Christ, as the Son of God, " had 
somewhat of himself to give," (Heb. 8 : 3) so that he 
could " purchase" us. Hence we read, Acts 20 : 28 : 
" Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased 
with his own blood ; " " For ye are bought with a 
price" (I Cor. 6 : 20; 7 : 23) ; " Denying the Lord that 
bought them" (2 Peter 2 : 1). We are said to be 
washed; cleansed, saved, justified, etc., through Christ's- 
blood, by which our sins are " blotted [not suffered] 
out." " By grace are ye saved." And, you remem- 
ber, I asked the question whether pardon is restrospec- 
tive or prospective, but he has not answered. I want 
to know what he says on that. 

There was no way, therefore^for man to suffer or work 
his freedom from the penalty of violated law. If it 
must depend upon his paying the death penalty in its 
fullness, his fate must be forever sealed to damnation. 
This is the condition that made it necessary for Christ 
to come to our world and be " delivered [to death] for 
our transgressions, and raised for our justification," 



368 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

(from the penalty which said, " Dust thou art, and to 
dust thou shalt return.") See Rom. 4: 25 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 
19 23; Gen. 3: 19. 

If a man sin, his suffering though continued infi- 
nitely would not make him less a sinner ; it could not 
wipe out a single stain already made. If a man blas- 
pheme the name of God, though but once, his suffer- 
ing could never eradicate that sin, even though he 
should sin no more — he must forever remain a blas- 
phemer, unless through grace that sin be pardoned and 
its penalty removed. These are fundamental princi- 
ples underlying the very nature of law, sin, and re- 
demption. An examination of the definitions in Web- 
ster or any other good dictionary, of the words " for- 
give," "pardon," " remit," etc., makes it evident that 
the meaning is to give back, return, to absolve, etc., 
without any equivalent compensation being made by 
the offender. This may be placed on conditions, it is 
true, but those conditions are in no sense a compensa- 
tion. 

Having, therefore, no sufficient righteousness of our 
own, nor yet any redeeming power, Christ became "our 
righteousnes," and our purchaser — paying his life for 
us. We regret to know that Universalists, after all 
their talk about salvation, the love of God, blood of 
Christ, grace, etc., deny this, and logically deny 
Christ's divinity and atonement. We would feign hope 
that this is not intentional on their part, but in fact and 
in logic it is true. In proof of this allegation we in- 
troduce a few sample quotations from their standard 
authors, which happen to be at hand. Cobb, on Matt. 
12:31, says: "Gospel forgiveness is a deliverance, 
not from deserved punishment, but from sin." That 
is, cease sinning, and you cease to be a sinner, after 
you have suffered all the deserved punishment. Butas 
we have shown, this could never be done. 

Mr. King says : " There is no escaping the punish- 



ME. HUGHES' SIXTH REJOINDER. 369 

ment inseperably connected with violated law." (King 
and Hobb's Debate, p. 77.) Again he says : "I deny 
that pardon does away with the penalty of the law." 
(Ibid, pp. 212, 218.) Thayer (pp. 189, 190) on Eom. 
5 : 9, says : " It is not the death of Christ, through 
which according to the popular theology, the atonement 
is made, but by his life that we are saved from this 
wrath * * * that is, the death of Christ, 
as an exhibition of divine love, has reconciled us to 
God, filled our hearts with gratitude and affection." 
That is, as we are compelled to understand him, Christ 
died simply as a martyr to prove God's love to us, and 
we are saved from committing sins by being drawn to 
him and following his example. [Time expired.] 

ME. HUGHES' SIXTH KEJOINDER. 

Messrs. Moderators : — In this speech I want to 
make a general review of everything touched upon by 
the brother, or brought forward under this proposition 
not already noticed. 

First I will refer to Alexander Campbell, and the 
setting up of the kingdom of Christ. He says that 
brother Campbell was too wise a man to teach that 
there was a coming of Christ in his kingdom at* the 
destruction of Jerusalem. Now I read from Mr. Camp- 
bell's Christian System on that subject, and I will risk 
that matter on what Mr. Campbell himself said. I 
think you can understand what I read to you, whether 
it is so or not. 

But so far as Scripture teaching is concerned on that 
subject, I have something more than that to bring for- 
ward. You will remember that he admitted that all 
the 24th of Matthew refers to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem ; and so the 21st of Luke, which is parallel to 
it, must refer to the same thing. Now it is said in 
Luke 21 : 25-32 : 
24 



370 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

" And there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon, and in the 
stars ; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity ; the 
sea and the waves roaring ; men's hearts failing them for fear, and 
for looking after those things which are coming on the earth ; for 
the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the 
Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And 
when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up 
your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to 
them a parable : Behold the fig tree, and all the trees ; when they 
now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer 
is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come 
to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily 
I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be ful- 
filled." 

Confessedly here Christ speaks of the destruction 
of Jerusalem. The things predicted were to be ful- 
filled in that generation. " This generation [this age 
or generation of men] shall not pass away till all be 
fulfilled." But Christ also refers them to the signs 
preceding that event, and says : " When ye shall see 
these things come to pass know ye that the kingdom 
of God is nigh at hand." This he connects also 
with his coming. " Then shall they see the Son of 
man coming in a cloud in power and great glory." So 
there was a coming of Christ in his kingdom at the 
destruction of Jerusalem, Bro. Carpenter to the con- 
tray, notwithstanding. 

He says Alexander Campbell is not the head of his 
Church. Well, I thought he was. I was under that 
impression. I never heard of his Church being in ex- 
istence till Alexander Campbell came on the platform. 
I think that is the general understanding about his 
Church. 

He quotes Dr. Edward Beecher, and says that I 
claim Mr. Beecher as being on my side. I did not say 
that. He is stronger authority as I have used him, 
when I admit that he is on my brother's side of the 
question. Now, Dr. Beecher takes the position that 
the " original sense of axon is not eternity , nor time in 
any form, but life." He says that " the etymological 



ME. hughes' sixth kejoinder. 371 

sense of Aristotle, aei, on, (ever-existing) was intro- 
duced into the Greek language at least five centuries 
after the days of Homer, and was in fact the creation 
of a new philosophical word, first used in the sense of 
eternity by Plato and Aristotle, and after them by 
many other philosophers." Of course, then, the word 
aionios, derived from aion, and getting all its force of 
meaning from aion, cannot have eternal as its primary 
sense, and the brother cannot make it so appear. 

But he says that the lake of fire into which the wick- 
ed are to be cast, is not to be destroyed. How does he 
know ? Where is his proof? Is there any passage of 
Scripture that says that it is eternal ? I will say that 
this is the language of figure ; it certainly must be 
when it is said "death and hades" are to be cast into 
it, and means the total destruction of death and hades. 
It is said in Rev. 19 : 19-21 : 

" And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their ar- 
mies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the 
horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with 
him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which 
he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them 
that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of 
fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the 
sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceedeth out 
of his mouth, and all the fowls were filled with their flesh " 

The beast and false prophet were cast alive into the 

the lake of fire and brimstone, but they could not be 

cast alive into the future state, as death is the door into 

the future state. And of the slain of battle, it is said, 

" all the fowls were filled with their flesh." This could 

not refer to the future world as there are no fowls there. 

The battle was in the earth, and the whole scene is laid 

in the earth. It is said again, in Rev. 20 : 10 : 

" And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be 
tormented day and night forever and ever." 

The devil, or dragon, was cast into the lake of fire 

" where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall 



372 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

be tormented day and night forever and ever." Now 
I say that this refers to the overthrow of powers in 
opposition to Christ in this world, that it is the lan- 
guage of time, and not eternity, for there are no days 
or nights in eternity. 

He wants to know if I think the " five brethren " 
of the Rich Man were five Jewish sects ; and he says 
that Rev. B. F. Snook so explained it at the Agricola 
debate, and he is anxious to know whether I agree with 
Bro. Snook. I will not say that. But I would like 
for him to say whether he thinks the " ten virgins" in 
the parable mean a definite number, the whole Chris- 
tian Church equally divided, half wise and half fool- 
ish ? Or if the number of persons to whom the tal- 
ents were entrusted is to be taken as a definite number 
of persons, to whom a definite number of talents were 
given ? Is there anything special in the particular 
number of talents distributed to each ? Dr. Barnes 
says in his Commentary on Luke 16 : 28: "The num- 
ber five is mentioned merely to preserve the verisimil- 
itude of the story. It is not to be spiritualized, nor 
are we to suppose that it has any hidden or inscruta- 
ble meaning," My opinion is that the Saviour de- 
signed, by the Rich Man, to reprove the Scribes and 
the Pharisees, for they brought the accusation against 
Christ, that he received sinners and eat with them, 
which gave rise to the discourse of which this parable 
is the end. See Luke 15 : 1-3; and then to show the 
liability of the whole Jewish people to the same pun- 
ishment, he brings in the five brethren. Thus far the 
representation is of an individual; he designed it for 
the nation, and adopted this plan to show that the ref- 
erence was general. 

Bro. Carpenter gives a definition of hades. He says 
it means the place of departed spirits from the period 
of death to the resurrection ; but by metonymy it 
sometimes means the grave or eternal 'perdition. Now, 



373 

Mr. A. Campbell, whom ray brother acknowledges to 
be high authority, in the Campbell and Skinner De- 
bate, pp. 71, 73, says : " It would indeed be supremely 
absurd, and no scholar ever did affirm, that either sheol or 
hades did necessarily signify endless misery, because sheol 
or hades is to be destroyed. Thus speaks John : 'Death 
and hell (hades) were cast into the lake of fire ; this is 
the second death. ' Sheol and its representative hades 
never did in the estimation of learned Christians, in- 
clude more than that portion of the future state lying 
between the last breath and the first blast of the arch- 
angel's trumpet, the interval between death and the 
judgment, or the state bounded by these two events. 
Therefore they include both Tartarus and Paradise, 
the righteous and the wicked dead ; and consequently, 
only sometimes can they represent punishment ; and for 
one great reason assigned never can signify eternal or 
endless punishment. It is the province and power of 
other words, adjuncts, and phrases, to teach punishment 
without end." 

Now here Mr. Campbell says : "It would indeed be 
Supremely absurd, and no scholar ever did affirm, that 
either sheol or hades did necessarily signify endless misery;" 
and for the reason assigned, that sheol and hades are to 
be destroyed, he says : " They never can signify eter- 
nal or endless punishment." So here we have Alexander 
Campbell, vs. G. T. Carpenter on the question of the 
meaning of the term hades. 

Mr. Campbell also says that " hades includes tartarus 
and paradise, the righteous and the wicked dead." So 
that when hades is destroyed, tartarus will also be de- 
stroyed. You will see that my friend's hells are to be 
destroyed, and he must get up another hell, if he can. 

He says that gehenna means the valley of the son 
of Hinnom, southeast of Jerusalem^ where the dead 
bodies were cast with all the offal of Jerusalem, where 
was bred the worms, and continual fires were kept up, 



374 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

and that in later times it became the image of the place 
of everlasting punishment ; and that it was so used in 
the days of our Saviour. He quotes Smith's Biblical 
Dictionary in proof of that definition. But I would call 
attention to the fact that the word gehenna does not oc- 
cur in the Apocrypha, it is not found in the writings of 
Josephus nor Philo,nor does it occur in any of the Jewish 
writings now extant, as indicating a place of endless 
misery earlier than the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzzi- 
el, which dates considerably after the Christian era,perhaps 
as late as the fourth century after Christ. There is no 
proof, then, that it had acquired the meaning of a place 
of eternal punishment in the days of Christ, and would 
be so understood by the Jews at that time, and conse- 
quently it fails him as a proof of his doctrine as quoted 
from Luke 12 : *4, 5. 

In reference to the date of the Targums I might quote 
from Smith's Bible Dictionary, Bishop Home, and other 
authorities, if necessary. Dr. Smith, on the date of the 
Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, says : " We shall 
probably not be far wrong in placing this Targum some 
time, although not long, after Onkelos, or about the mid- 
dle of the 4th century." Bib. Die, p. 981. 

Bishop Home says, in reference to the date of the 
same Targum : " From the silence of Origen and Je- 
rome concerning this Targum, of which they could not 
but have availed themselves if it had really existed in 
their time, and also from its being cited in the Talmud, 
both Bauer and Jahn date it much later than is gener- 
ally admitted ; the former, indeed, of the opihion, that 
its true date cannot be ascertained, and the latter, from 
the inequalities of style and method observable in it, 
considers it as a compilation from the interpretations 
from several learned men, made about the close of the 
third or fourth century." Home's Introduction, p. 
262. 

Now, according to these authorities, my friend cannot 



ME. HUGHES 7 SIXTH KEJOINDER. 375 

get the meaning of a place of endless torment into 
this word gehenna, until a period three or four centuries 
after Christ, and too late to be of any service here in 
proof of his proposition. 

He brings in the word " kolasis," rendered punishment 
in Matt. 25 : 46. Now I am quite willing to agree to 
the definitions of that word my brother read to you, for 
they are all against him. But he wants to know if pun- 
ishment is not one of its meanings f Of course it is ; 
but the idea of correction is in the punishment. The 
primary sense of the word is 'pruning, as the pruning 
of a tree for its improvement, whence we get the sense 
of chastisement. But this pruning, chastisement, pun- 
ishment, if you please, is for the benefit of the person to 
whom it is applied, as pruning is for the benefit of the 
tree, so that it may bear the better fruit. This brings 
into view the purpose of the punishment ; it is for re- 
formation, and the idea of endless punishment is refuted 
by the use of the word kolasis. Further on the purpose 
of divine punishment, I read Heb. 12 : 9-11 : 

" Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected 
us, and we gave them reverence ; shall we not much rather be in 
subjection unto the Father of spirits and live ? For they verily for 
a few days chastened us after their own pleasure ; but he for our 
profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chasten- 
ing for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous ; nevertheless, 
afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them 
which are exercised thereby." 

The punishment is " for our profit, that we might be 
partakers of his holiness." And, though it is "griev- 
ous," yet there is an "afterward" to it; and "it yieldeth 
the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto them which 
are exercised thereby." 

But he wants to know what becomes of the limbs that 
are cut off. He says that they are destroyed — burned 
up ; that those punished are cut from among the people. 
But he forgets that it is men themselves that axe pruned, 
chastised, and I have shown that it is for their benefit 



376 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

that they are to endure this chastisement. The tree is 
pruned of its surplus branches, they are cut off, not 
the tree. I would like to know of what benefit it is 
that men are to receive in being " cut off" and burned 
forever in a lake of fire? 

Then as to that anathema. He said Paul was willing 
to be cut off for a time — 

Mr. Carpenter. — I did not say that. I said that 
was what you wanted to make me say. 

Mr. Hughes. — Well, did you mean that Saint Paul 
was willing to be damned to all eternity for his breth- 
ren ? 

Mr. Carpenter. — I said to express his deep attach- 
ment for his brethren, he says, " I could wish myself 
accursed from Christ for my kinsmen," etc., that he was 
willing to share their lot whatever that might be, only 
so they were saved. 

Mr. Hughes. — And that meant eternal damnation ; 
did it not ? 

Mr. Carpenter. — I understand it to mean eternal 
separation from Christ. 

Mr. Hughes. — Well, I am willing for that to stand! 
It seems that Paul was willing to be damned to all eter- 
nity for his brethren ! That is like the old Calvinistic 
requirement, that a person must be willing to be damned 
in order to be saved ! I do not believe that my friend 
can persuade you that Paul was willing for any such 
thing as that. But we will rest that right where he has 
put it. 

He quotes a great many conditional promises. But why 
need he do that ? Now I admit that there are condi- 
tional promises. My position is not that they will enjoy 
the blessing without complying with the promises ; but 
that they will be brought to comply with the conditions. 
Nor do I deny that there will be differences there that 
will result from obedience to the conditions of the prom- 
ises. There will be many crowns there, and star will 



ME. HUGHES' SIXTH REJOINDER. 377 

differ from star in glory. But that does not affect my 
position at all. That does not prove that anybody will 
be finally tormented and punished in an eternal hell. 

He quotes from Lange's comment on Rev. 3:11) "Be- 
hold I come quickly," in reference to the meaning of 
the word " quickly/' as applied to the coming of Christ. 
Lange speaks of this " coming " being " wearisomely 
protracted/' and so, according to him, " quickly " does 
not mean quickly at all, but something "wearisomely pro- 
tracted ! " Lange, in his German mystical style, has 
queer words there, that I do not suppose that my brother 
fully understands. Now, I thought the words of the 
Bible, unless otherwise required therein, were to be 
taken in their plain ordinary sense : and so I think any- 
body that did not have a theory to support, would take 
that word " quickly " when it is said of Christ's coming, 
" Behold I come quickly." Now James in his Epistle 
(5 : 7-9) says : 

" Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. 
Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, 
and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and the lat- 
ter rain. Be ye also patient ; stablish your hearts ; for the coming 
of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, breth- 
ren, lest ye be condemned ; behold the judge standeth before the 
door." 

They were to be patient under their trials and suf- 
ferings, and the reason was that they would not have to 
endure them long, for the coming of the Lord was 
drawing nigh. Paul gives the same assurance, " yet 
a little while, and he that shall come, will come, and will 
not tarry." Heb. 10 : 37. Again in the latter part of 
the boo*k of Revelation, it is clearly shown that the time 
of Christ's coming was at hand. 

Let us read Rev. 22 : 10-12 : 

" And he saith unto me, " Seal not the sayings of the prophecy 
of this book ; for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be 
unjust still ; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that 
is righteous, let him be righteous still ; and he that is holy let him 



378 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with 
me to give every man according as his work shall be." 

Can there be any mistake as to the meaning of the 
phrases, " the time is at hand," and " behold, I come 
quickly ? " 

Now, if he will carefully read the book of Revelation, 
he will find evidences in the book itself that Jerusalem 
was still standing at the time the book was written. 
Rev. 11:1, " And there was given unto me a reed, like 
unto a rod ; and the angel stood, saying, Rise and mea- 
sure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that 
worship therein." Now, if Jerusalem was then de- 
stroyed, and the temple razed to its foundations, what 
sense was there in that ? But my brother says the book 
was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
quotes Lange, and others, on that point. But there is 
other testimony that decides differently. Dr. C. E. 
Stowe, on the same subject, quotes Guericke and Prof. 
Stuart in reference to the date of John's banishment 
to Patmos in the reign of Nero. Dr. Stowe says : "Nero 
was of the Domitian full family, and his family designa- 
tion was Nero Claudius Domitius, or in the adjective form 
JDomitianus. This led to the misapprehension among 
some of the ancients that John suffered punishment 
under Domitian, and not under Nero; but this was by no 
means the case with all. The subject is very thoroughly 
and satisfactorily discussed by Guericke in his Einleitung 
in das Neue Testament, pp. 59-65, and 522-530. And 
also by Prof. Stuart, in his Commentary on the Apoc- 
alypse, vol. 1, pp. 263-282." History of the Books of 
the Bible, p. 187, note. » 

Now Dr. Stowe shows clearly how the mistake was 
made by which it was held that John suffered under Do- 
mitian, that is about A. D. 95 or 96, whereas, it was at 
an earlier date and under the Emperor Nero, that John 
was banished to Patmos, and that the Book of Re vela- 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REJOINDER. 379 

tion was written. To this Prof. Stuart bears witness 
as follows : 

" After the view of ancient testimony, which has been given 
above, it is almost superfluous to repeat, that all succeeding writings 
hang upon Ireneaus as their support. The testimony in respect to 
the matter before us is evidently successive and dependent, not coe- 
taneous and independent. We may safely follow the plain 
and unequivocal evidences of the time when the Apocalypse was 
written, which are contained within the book itself, and have 
already been exhibited in the preceding pages. No other evidences 
can do away the force of the author's own declarations." Comment- 
ary on Kevelation, vol. 1, p. 282. 

The brother's argument, therefore, that the statement 
in the book of Revelation as to the coining of Christ 
cannot, for the reason of its subsequent date, apply to 
the destruction of Jerusalem, cannot be sustained. 

Then comes his argument on Scriptural antithesis. A 
very simple explanation will answer all he has said upon 
that. Now he says that the two sides of the antithesis 
must balance exactly. Very well. Now for a sample 
passage out of all he has quoted on that subject, let us 
take Rom. 6 : 23, " For the wages of sin is death, but 
the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." Now, here, on the one side, we have 
sin, and the wages of sin, death. On the other 
side, God f and the gift of God, eternal life. These 
are the opposites, the things that are in antithesis 
in this passage. Now, will he say that these things 
are equal ? He says if it is eternal life on the 
one side, then it must be eternal death on the other. 
But the phrase " eternal death " is not there, nor any- 
where else in the Bible. Will he say that death exactly 
balances with eternal lifef Is sin equal to Godf Is 
the gift of God only equal to the wages of sin f Now, 
he says both ends of the balances must be equal, but he 
cannot make them equal. Sin is in no way equal to 
God. The "gift of God'' is something more than the 
"wages of sin." Where, then, is the force of the anti- 
thesis that makes " death " as eternal as life ? Dr. 



380 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

Clarke says of the word rendered " wages," that it "sig- 
nified the daily pay of a Roman soldier. So every 
sinner has a daily pay, and this pay is death; he has mis- 
ery because he sins." The sinner has his daily wages — 
death. He is under the power of that death now. "The 
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life 
through Jesus Christ our Lord." So the sinner may 
pass from under this death and come into the possession 
of eternal life ; which shows that the death cannot be 
eternal, for then he could not pass from it. In John 5 : 
24, it is said : 

" Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and 
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not 
come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." 

This passage speaks of the believer being already in 
possession of eternal life, of having already "passed 
from death unto life; " and so the death is not an endless 
or eternal death, for if it were an endless death, it would 
be impossible that any should pass from it. But if any 
can pass from under this death, then the terms of his 
antithesis are not equal, and his argument falls to the 
ground. 

He refers to Gen. 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face 
shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, 
for out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou art, and 
unto dust shalt thou return." Now, he says that the 
original sentence pronounced upon Adam, and referred 
to there, " In the day thou eatest thereof [of the for- 
bidden tree] thou shalt surely die," (Gen. 2 : 17) had 
the elements of future endless punishment in it. But 
then you remember that he said, when commenting on 
Dan. 12: 2, that where this term dust is used in the 
Scriptures it always means a literal death, or a literal 
resurrection. But I showed by an argument that he 
has not noticed, that Christ applied that passage to the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and that it could not mean 
such a literal resurrection. Well, you remember I asked 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REJOINDER. 381 

him whether that when man fell under that death which 
is the penalty of sin, there was any good left in him ; 
and I ask him that question now. 

Mr. Carpenter. — It is against the rules to answer 
your question now ; but I will answer you in due time. 

Mr. Hughes. — Very well, if you decline to answer 
it now, we will let it go for the present. But he said 
the element of eternal death was in that sentence. Now, 
I say if there was no good remaining in Adam when he 
fell under that death, then he was totally depraved, 
which my brother does not believe. Now, if ttiat is so, 
then as sure as you live, every man since that time has 
been. totally depraved; for all have suffered the same 
death. " By one man sin entered into the world, and 
death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men for that 
all have sinned" Rom. 5:12. If man is ever raised 
from that death, God must do it, for none other can do 
it, and if it is not done, God alone is to blame for it. 
My friend may take either horn of that dilemma he 
chooses. 

He affirms that probation is limited to this life. How 
does he know ? Has he proved it ? I deny squarely 
that it is limited to this life. Now let him prove it, if 
he can. 

He wants to know whether pardon is for past sins or 
for sins not yet committed. I will say simply, and to the 
point, that forgiveness is for sins that are passed. The 
prodigal was never forgiven until he went back to his 
father's house ; then he was forgiven. The past was 
forgiven. But that forgiveness did not save him from 
the starvation, from the feeding on husks, from the want 
and suffering into which he had brought himself. In 
that way he endured the penalty of his sins, just as men 
are now enduring the penalty of their sins. His for- 
giveness restored him to the favor of his father, but it 
did not save him from the penalties he had endured. 
f The brother says I claimed that the Scriptures are 



382 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

opposed to endless punishment or misery ; but that I 
failed to prove it. But does he not recollect that I quo- 
ted a number of passages to show it ? such as " The 
Lord will not cast off forever," " He will not contend for- 
ever," etc., etc. Now those passages will do to " keep." 
The brother can lay that matter over, and, perhaps, by 
" the assistance of the brethren," he may be able to say 
something about them this afternoon. 

I will now present some additional objections in the 
shape of negative arguments to the theory of the 
brother. 

III. I object to the doctrine of endless punishment 
because it is contrary to reason. It is unreasonable as 
well as un script ural. The voice of reason and revela- 
tion must be harmonious. God says to man, " Come, 
now, and let us reason together." Isa. 1 : 18. Christ 
says to the people, " Why even of yourselves judge ye 
not what is right?" Luke 12 : 57. And Paul com- 
mands, " Prove all things, and hold fast that which is 
good." 1 Thes. 5 : 21. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that God would make 
infinite consequences to depend upon the choice and 
action of finite creatures. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that God would compel 
man, whom he has designed for endless existence, to 
choose a destiny for eternity in the very morning of 
existence, when the least qualified to choose either in 
wisdom or experience. 

It is contrary to the analogy of this life, to suppose 
that death fixes the condition of man for eternity, who 
had the power to change his condition all along 
through this life, on the plan of the preaching, call, and 
requirements of the gospel. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that death determines 
the destiny of man, a progressive being, who is free, and 
has the power of choice now and forever. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that man's last act, 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REJOINDER. 383 

choice, or determination, has more to do with his char- 
acter for eternity, than his whole previous life. And 
yet it does, if endless punishment is true. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the mere accident 
of man's parentage, birth, and education, will fix his 
happiness or misery for all eternity. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the time and cir- 
cumstances of man's death will fix his destiny world 
without end. That he dies by accident to-day and goes 
to perdition ; had he lived till to-morrow, he would 
have been converted and heaven his portion. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the gleam of a 
knife, the explosion of a pistol, or the flash of electricity 
shall separate from God's favor, love, and compassion, 
and expose the victim to unending wrath and vindictive 
cruelty. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the commission of 
a capital crime, and certain execution on the gallows 
conduces more to an eternity of bliss, than a compara- 
tively moral or virtuous life. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the commission ot a 
capital crime, and the sending of a victim into the awful 
realities of an eternal hell should be the means that lead 
to a triumphant immortality. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that a man may be the 
means of sending thousands down to eternal agony, and 
yet he enjoy an eternity of well satisfied bliss. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the young man who 
has heard the gospel once, and rejected it once, should 
be liable to the same endless hell that the man is who 
has rejected the gospel a thousand times. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the youth who 
rejects the gospel once, and then dies, is justly liable to 
endless misery, while the man of old age, who has re- 
jected the gospel a thousand times, is guilty of licen- 
tiousness, dishonesty, theft, robbery, and murder, by one 



384 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

acceptance of the gospel, at the end of his wicked life, 
becomes worthy of eternal glory. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the virgin who sac- 
rifices her life in defense of her virtue, shall suffer in the 
same eternal hell with her worse than murderer. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the worse than fiend 
that has sent deathless virtue and spotless innocence to 
the eternal companionship of fiends, furies, and devils, 
earns heaven by prison cell repentance, and swings 
from the galloAVS to the blissful society of angels and 
just men made perfect. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the man who is 
comparatively moral and virtuous, loses all his goodness 
at death. 

It is unreasonable to suppose, then, that there is no 
moral excellence in hell. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the man who lives 
a life of sin, and acquires sinful habits, by the accept- 
ance of the gospel at the end of his life, loses all the 
evil in him at death. Goodness, real goodness is to be 
obtained by continued eifort, growth and developement. 

It is unreasonable to suppose, then, if death fixes a 
man's character for eternity, that there is no imperfec- 
tion in heaven. 

It is unreasonable to suppose, my friend's ideas of the 
conditions of salvation being true, and taking into ac- 
count the history of those who have accepted, and those 
who have rejected these conditions, that hell does not 
have some in it who have better morals, and so, there- 
fore, make a better society, than do a vast multitude in 
heaven. 

And lastly, it is reasonable to suppose that a doc- 
trine so manifestly unreasonable is most absurdly false 
and unworthy of belief. 

God help us to be reasonable. 

IV. I object to the doctrine of endless punishment 
because it involves the absurdity that the law of God 



^m 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REJOINDER. 385 

will be satisfied with something short of its original 
demand. 

The law demands obedience ; it teaches that the law 
will be satisfied with punishment. The law requires 
obedience ; it teaches that it will be satisfied with end- 
less disobedience. The law requires that the sinner 
shall cease from sin ; but it teaches that the law will be 
satisfied with his continuing to sin forever. 

It teaches that the law demands a penalty, the inflic- 
tion of which would be a greater evil than the violation 
of the law itself. As much greater as eternal sinning is 
a greater evil than sinning for a life-time. 

God's law was given for a wise and holy purpose ; 
for the proper education of man — his salvation. 
But if endless misery is true, the result is the very re- 
verse ; the perpetuation of sin, and damnation to all 
eternity. Had there been no law given, then no con- 
demnation. But God gives a law, and means man's 
good, but the result is, contrary to his intention, sin and 
woe to a great proportion of mankind forever. 

V. I object to the doctrine of endless punishment 
as being a violation of God's justice. It is just in God 
to render to men according to their works. The Bible 
asserts this ; and reason approves it. But this is a re- 
cognition of a due proportion between sin and its pun- 
ishment. Less or more than that is a violation of jus- 
tice. All sins are not of the same turpitude ; do not 
incur the same degree of guilt, and, therefore, do not 
deserve the same degree of punishment. 

If one sin does not deserve endless punishment, the 
sins of a lifetime cannot. Admit degrees in guilt and 
punishment, and endless punishment is an absurdity. 

" Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. 

18: 25. "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, 

even to give to every man according to his ways, and 

according to the fruit of his doings." Jer. 17 : 10. "And 

25 



386 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

that servant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared 
not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be 
beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and 
did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten 
with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, 
much is required ; and to whom men have committed 
much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12 : 47, 
48. 

The principle of degrees in sin and punishment is a 
Scriptural one. It is also the clearest common sense. 
But contend for endless punishment and you violate this 
principle, and God's justice is impeached. And by the 
same reasoning that you admit degrees in the severity of 
punishment, you are bound to admit degrees in the dura- 
tion of punishment ; and endless punishment stands re- 
futed. There is no more reason why the sinner's pun- 
ishment should be infinite in duration than infinite in 
degree. 

Endless punishment violates the justice of God be- 
cause it is a punishment not in proportion to sins com- 
mitted, or degree of guilt incurred, for there is no pro- 
portion between the sins of this life and endless misery. 

If endless punishment is a demand of justice, then 
justice will never be satisfied. For what is endlessly 
doing, will never be done. 

The very expression and idea of rewarding men ac- 
cording to their works, is inconsistent with endless pun- 
ishment. 

It is just for God to be " kind to the evil and the un- 
thankful" in this life. It will, therefore, be just for 
God to be kind and merciful to all men in the future 
state. Justice, then, does not require God to be eter- 
nally unkind. 

God's justice requires all men to be obedient in this 
life. It will require the same in the future life, and 
always. To say that God will make the sinner incapa- 



387 

ble of rendering obedience to the demands of his justice 
is to assert that he violates his own justice. Turn it in 
whatever way you will, endless punishment is inconsist- 
ent with the justice of God. [Time expired.] 



ME! CARPENTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren Moderators ; — We have come to the last 
half day of this discussion, which, I think you will bear 
me witness, has been thus far a pleasant one. My bro- 
ther came in here this morning in rather an unnatural 
mood for him. One or two inuendoes of his in his last 
speech, were as much unlike his general behavior here, 
as they were untrue. There has been very little occa- 
sion for any reflections here in regard to the manner 
of conducting this discussion. Hence it came with very 
ill grace from him to intimate that my friends were in- 
terfering in the matter, especially after his demonstra- 
tion, and that of his friends on yesterday. I thought 
the sweat he took at the close of my last speech yester- 
day, while the moderators were going to the stove to 
warm, would have taken all the bad humor out of him. 
The truth is that he and his friends had expected and 
boasted an easy victory before this debate began ; but 
they now see it very differently, as do also the people. 
The best his friends now say is, I learn, that it "is about 
even ; " and to-day they are saying, " Bro. Hughes will 
redeem himself yet ! " But let that matter pass. We 
observe, however, that he has not become sufficiently 
composed to distinguish between the preaching of right- 
eousness by Noah and other Old Testament worthies ; 
and the preaching of the gospel under the Christian dis- 
pensation. But, in conclusion concerning the spirits in 
prison, let me ask, Why, if the preaching was done in 
hades, does Peter confine it to the antediluvians ? Were 
there not millions of the spirits of heathen and others 



388 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

besides the antediluvians in hades at the time of Christ's 
death ? Why, then, confine the preaching, or the men- 
tioning of the preaching to the latter? You see such 
an interpretation is inconsistent. But the apostle refers 
to Noah's ministry, and this exegesis of the passage har- 
monizes with all the facts and Scriptural bearings on the 
case. 

I want this afternoon to present all the direct argu- 
ments possible, especially as I have much more matter 
than I shall be able to introduce within the limits of 
this discussion. I want to get in all I can in this speech 
so my brother may have the opportunity of answering it. 

XI. The condition of fallen angels. 

For these there is no redemption revealed. This 
makes it presumptive that wicked men who are not 
saved in this, the only probationary state revealed for 
them, who are akin in their actions to these rebellious 
angels, and concerning whom the Scriptures declare they 
shall share " the place prepared for the devil and his 
angels," will share their fate. For if God can be God 
possessed of all his attributes of love, mercy, etc., and 
yet allow one class of his intelligent creatures to be pun- 
ished forever, there can be no reason why he may not 
permit another class to endure the same. This logic of 
fact cannot be refuted by any maudlin sentimentalism. 

1 quote from John 8 : 41 : 

" Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye 
will do ; he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in 
the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie 
he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it." 

Now notice, it is said that he " abode not in the 
truth." This makes it evident that he was once in the 
truth. But perhaps my brother will say, with Cobb, 
that this was "the Imposter, of figurative personifica- 
tion ! » 

2 Peter 2: 4-11: 

" For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them 
down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be re- 



MR. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 389 

served unto judgment. * * * Whereas angels, which 
are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against 
them before the Lord." 

This passage teaches that the angels fell — they " sin- 
ned," and are " reserved unto judgment" being delivered 
" into chains of darkness." Peter's " darkness " is the 
" everlasting chains " of Jude 6 : " And the angels 
which kept not their first estate, but left their own habi- 
tation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under 
darkness unto the judgment of the great day." These 
Scriptures expressly affirm that these fallen angels are 
"reserved" for punishment unto the judgment of the 
great day ; a day yet future. 

I also quote Rev. 20 : 10-15 : 

" And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall 
be tormented day and night forever and ever. And I saw a great 
white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and 
the heaven fled away : and there was found no place for them. And 
I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books 
were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of 
life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which were writ- 
ten in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the 
dead which were in it ; and death and hell delivered up the dead 
which were in them ; and they were judged every man according to 
their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. 
This is the second death. And whosoevor was not found written in 
the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." 

And so the fate of some men is to be similar to that 
of fallen angels. You remember my brother's comments 
on aidios. He admitted that it meant endless, and that is 
the word used in Jude 6, and rendered " everlasting." 
I want to know what use he has for " everlast- 
ing chains " when there are no longer any to be 
bound with them. My brother admitted that the word 
means endless in the absolute sense, so that these angels 
are " reserved," according to his own admission, and are 
in endless punishment. If the chains are made to rep- 
resent the purposes of God, then, I ask, Will they ever 
be taken out from under the purposes of God ? By 



390 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the quotation from Rev. 20; 10, we learn that the devil 
and his companions are cast into the lake of fire and 
brimstone. Here is the lake of fire to which my bro- 
ther referred ; but did you notice what a mythical lake 
of fire his was? But it is not so here, lor here are 
literal prisoners that are cast into it, whatever its nature 
may be. 

Here also we have them (verse 10) "tormented day 
and night" (an expression to denote entirety) eis tous 
aionas ton aidnon. We have before proven that aion 
preceded by eis, always indicates duration without end. 
We have also shown that the compound, or repeated 
form of aion, as in this passage, is never used in a re- 
stricted sense ; so that there are these two reasons here 
why this expression necessarily implies unlimited dura- 
tion. 

What is my brother going to do with their being 
" tormented day and night ? " How is he going to get 
them out of this " lake of fire " in which they are to be 
" tormented day and night forever and everf" The ex- 
pression " day and night," of course, simply expresses 
totality of time. The Revelator uses the same expres- 
sion as descriptive of the saints in the heavenly temple : 
" And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said 
to me, These are they which came out of great tribula- 
tion, and have washed their robes, and made them white 
in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before 
the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his 
temple ; and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell 
among. them." Rev. 7:14, 15. See also Rev. 4: 8; 
14:11. 

Mark, then, that this tormenting of Rev. 20 : 10, is 
placed in the future world, and that it is expressed in 
the compound form which always signifies endless, and 
fixes the duration of the punishment of the devil, the 
fallen angels, and men who are the " children of the 
devil." 



ME. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 391 

Angelloi (Jude 6 ; 2 Peter 2 : 4) means messengers ; 
but that there are certainly heavenly messengers differ- 
ent from men, and that never were men, is evident from 
the Scriptures. So there are fallen messengers. Concern- 
ing good angels, the Bible so abounds, and critics so 
agree, as to the evidence of their existence, we need say 
nothing. Concerning fallen angels, Universalists ob- 
ject, simply because the concession would place an insu- 
perable difficulty in their way. Smith, in his Bible 
Dictionary, says : 

"That there are degrees of the angelic nature, fallen and unfallen, 
and special titles and agencies belonging to each, is clearly declared 
by St. Paul,") (Eph. 1 : 21 ; Koni. 8 : 38.) 

On the existence of Satan, the same authority says : 

" It would be a waste of time to prove that a personal existence 
of the Spirit of Evil, is taught in the Scriptures. Every quality, 
every action, that can indicate personality, is attributed to him in 
language so clear that it cannot be explained away." 

He applies to the devil and his angels such passages 
as Matt. 25 : 41 ; Eev. 12 : 7-9 ; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6, 
etc. Barnes, Clarke, McKnight, Lange, etc., refer 2 
Peter 2 : 4 and Jude 6 to fallen superhuman beings. See 
in loco. 

We are not unmindful that Universalists consider the 
Devil, Hell, etc., only Pagan myths, or Oriental hyper- 
bola; but what they consider, and what the Bible teaches, 
Ave have often found are very different questions. But 
they enquire, " Did not the heathen have various myth- 
ological stories about one or more devils, Diabolus, Ac- 
cuser, Lucifer, Abaddon, Apollyon, Beelzebub, or by 
whatever name called ? " Certainly. But in turn, we 
ask, Did they not have corresponding mythologies con- 
cerning one or more Gods,Theoses, Jupiters, Brahms, or 
by whatever name called ? Are we, therefore, to con- 
clude that the God of the Bible is a myth ? This would 
be no more illogical than to resolve the Devil of the 
Bible into a myth. Did Christ make his own Devil in 
the wilderness ? Who tempted him there ? Did he 



392 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

tempt himself? Or was it Judas that tempted him, or 
who ? The Bible teaches that it was a personal devil. 

But then it is said that " devil " means a slanderer, a 
deceiver, or opposer. Be it so. But " God " means master, 
rider, prince, and, probably, the good one. Does this 
destroy the Bible doctrine of a real God, the imperson- 
ification of all power and goodness? But it is affirmed 
that the term devil, satan, etc., are often applied in the 
Scriptures to men, evil spirits, or demons, etc. Grant 
it. But are not men, angels, idols, and even men's bel- 
lies called "gods ?" (See Ex. 7:1; Gen. 18 : 12. 
Also see Universalism Against Itself, pp. 252-261.) 
Now is there no other God than these ? If the name 
John meant love, and Peter a stone, were these men, there- 
fore, only love and a stone ? Bible (biblion) means booh ; 
but are all books Bibles? If, because all names origi- 
nally had, probably, some definite attributive meaning, 
shall we, therefore, conclude that they could not repre- 
sent real men or things ; but only qualities or character- 
istics ? The absurdity of such logic is too apparent to 
justify notice. Yet otherwise sensible men will resort 
to just such subterfuges to get rid of that being whose 
fate they fear. And here let me remark that the very 
fact that we sometimes call men " devilish," indicates 
that there is a devil. Would you have ever called a 
man " dogigsh " if there had never been a dog, with 
whose characteristics you w^re acquainted, and whose 
qualities the man's actions resembled ? 

The Bible everywhere represents Satan as possessed 
of real personality, as much so as God. In a former 
part of this debate we showed that he is the leader of 
the fallen angels. We now propose to show that God 
has prepared a place for the devil and his angels, and 
that wicked men will share that place with them. 

But we are reminded that hell (Anglo-Saxon, a hole), 
gehenna, tartarus, sheol, etc., only originally meant the 
valley of the son of Hinnom,the unseen, etc. Grant it. 



ME. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 393 

So Heaven, (A. S., that ivhich is heaved, or elevated) orig- 
inally meant the firmament, a mountain, the expanse ; 
paradeisos meant a garden, etc. (See Smith's Bible Dic- 
tionary). But does this prove that there is no real heaven? 
No ; there is a real, eternal heaven; and there is, also, 
a real, eternal hell — " by the help of the brethren," Bro. 
Hughes ! — [said as a book or paper was being passed to 
Mr. Hughes by one of his friends, and in allusion to a 
former remark concerning the help of the brethren] — 
the one as real as the other. 

If Universalist logic were carried out it would repre- 
sent a mythical God, dwelling in a mythical heaven, 
preparing a mythical place for mythical beings, myth- 
ically called " the devil and his angels." All this to be 
learned from a mythical book, called mythically the 
Bible ! 

But God is real, and never made anything in vain ; 
but he has made a " place for the devil and his angels." 
Matt. 25 : 41, " Then shall he say also unto them on 
the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlast- 
ing fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." See also 
Jude 6 ; 2 Peter 2:4; Rev. 20 : 2, 3, also already 
quoted. 

For these beings there has been provided no redemp- 
tion ; hence their punishment must be endless. But we 
have likewise shown that wicked men, " children of 
the Devil," will share their father's place after the judg- 
ment day. 

XII. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RESURRECTION 
AND THE JUDGMENT. 

We have already incidentally proven the literalness 
of the resurrection, and the futurity of the judgment ; 
but we now propose to build an argument directly on 
the difference in character and condition that men will 
then have. 

First, we will produce proof of a literal resurrection. 

When it is said that Jairus's daughter, the son of the 



394 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

widow of Nain, and Lazarus were raised, we know it 
was a physical resurrection. Not only so, but the lan- 
guage in the latter case, (John 11 : 23-27,) especially, 
shows that the doctrine of a physical resurrection was 
understood by Martha, as it was held by the Pharisees 
and by many others of the Jews. It will be remem- 
bered that Lazarus's body had been in the grave four 
days. Now when Jesus met Martha he told her that 
her brother should rise again. She, as though thinking 
the Master had questioned her faith in the great doc- 
trine of a general resurrection at the close of time, said : 
" I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the 
last day." This fixes the resurrection : not simply a 
resurrection, but the resurrection at the last day. 
This " last day " can not refer to Pentecost, nor yet 
to the destruction of Jerusalem, since no such resurrec- 
tion occurred then or was promised. 

Jesus immediately informs her saying, "I am the res- 
urrection and the life ; he that believeth in me, though 
he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth 
and believeth in me, shall never die. Believest thou 
this ? " John 11 : 25, 26. Or as Paul puts it, (1 Cor. 
15; 20, 21) "As in [by] Adam all die, [go into the 
grave] even so in [by] Christ shall all be made alive," 
[be raised from the grave]. But Jesus said to Martha, 
that those that believe in him " shall never die." No ! 
not in the terrible sense attached to that word in the 
Scriptures. The Christian's death is only a " sleep " in 
Jesus, and " Them that sleep in Jesus will God bring 
with him," (1 Thes. 4 : 14] and upon such " the second 
death shall have no power." Rev. 20 : 6. 

At Christ's resurrection we read (Matt. 27 : 52, 53) : 
" And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints 
which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, 
and went into the holy city and appeared unto many." 

Now, why the opening of the graves, if the body, that 
which had been laid in the grave, did not come up ? 



ME. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 395 

I will now introduce several other passages that teach 
the doctrine of a literal resurrection : 

" But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning 
them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have 
no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so 
also them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this 
wc say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and 
remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are 
asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a 
shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God ; 
and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; then we which are alive and 
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet 
the Lord in the air ; and so shall we ever be with the Lord ; where- 
fore comfort one another with these words." 2 Thes. 4 : 13-18. 

But before proceeding further with this argument, as 
my time is now short, I will notice a few things in my 
brother's last speech. 

He sticks to his " clients," the heathen, and quotes 
Gal. 3:8; Eom. 2 : 30, to prove that they will be 
saved by faith. But he must know that those Scrip- 
tures are parts of arguments to prove that the Gen- 
tiles had a right to the preaching of the gospel under 
the commission in this world, and have not the remotest 
allusion to anything beyond death. 

Though often corrected, he persists in misrepresenting 
my remark upon Matt. 24. I did not admit that that 
chapter, nor what he calls its parallel, Luke 21, refers 
exclusively to the destruction of Jerusalem. On the con- 
trary I stated distinctly, that with most standard authors, 
I hold that there are three questions here, viz., the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, the coming of Christ, and the 
end of the world. I said, however, that I should build 
no affirmative argument upon Matt. 24. Though the 
moderators have several times ruled it out of order, he 
seeks by chatechetical catch -words, to elicit some word 
from me that he can torture into a concession. This 
course can only be interpreted as a confessed inability to 
meet the issue fairly. Does he suppose this audience 
has forgotten what was really said ? Does he forget that 



396 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

that report will place his false issues and perversions on 
record to be read by the world ? 

We have already shown that Bro. Campbell does not 
say concerning the setting up of the kingdom and the 
coming of Christ, what my opponent would make you 
believe. Bro. Campbell taught that Christ came by the 
Spirit, as promised (John 14 : 18) at Pentecost, that the 
kingdom was then established, that the apostles during 
their life-time completed the canon of revelation, that 
the kingdom, or church, still stands, and men and wo- 
men are being introduced into it, that in this sense it will 
not be complete until Christ shall come the second time, 
to judge the living and the dead — a coming with his 
angels in the clouds at the time of the general resurrec- 
tion. He believed, as I do, that Christ visited the Jews 
with his threatened punishment at the destruction of 
Jerusalem. This, and that which followed their disper- 
sion, etc., was a national punishment. Their individual 
punishment, like that of other sinners, will be meted 
out to them at the judgment which is subsequent to the 
resurrection. 

It seems that my brother is not yet satisfied with his 
efforts upon the words aidn, aidnios, etc. So Dr. Beecher 
and others are again introduced. But I showed in my 
last speech, that Dr. Beecher's position, if true, is far 
from sustaining my brother's point. With Dr. Beecher 
it is simply a question as to the etymological derivation 
of the word. But, as already quoted by Bit). Hughes 
himself, Beecher claims that the idea of eternity, or end- 
lessness, was introduced into the word by Plato and 
Aristotle, some 350 years before Christ, and that it was 
thenceforward used in that sense. This covers the use 
of the terms by Christ and the Apostles — all that I am 
concerned about. But is it not a little presumptuous for 
my brother, or even for Dr. Beecher, to attempt to teach 
Plato and Aristotle, those grand old Greek scholars, 
still held as models, in our schools, their native Ian- 



ME. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 397 

guage ! Beecher concedes that Aristotle derived axon 
from aei, always, and on, being; hence, always-being, or 
endless. He acknowledges, too, that the learned world, 
as a rule, have so held. What a pity that Plato and 
Aristotle, as well as nearly all of our Greek scholars, 
could not have Bro. Hughes and Dr. Beecher as in- 
structors ! 

But as we have already read from Dr. Beecher, in his 
discussion with Dr. Pond, he repudiates the sentiments 
and positions imputed to him by Bro. Hughes. Dr. 
Beecher distinctly says that the word does include the 
idea of eternity, that the Old Testament does teach the 
doctrine of endless punishment, and that the doctrine 
of endless punishment, as I have proven was held 
by the early fathers. He only combats certain phases 
of the subject. Nor does Prof. Tayler Lewis say con- 
cerning the re-duplicate and plural forms of aidn, 
aionios, and olam, what my opponent represents. Prof. 
Lewis says these forms raise the conception of the 
mind ; that is, that these forms are used for emphasis. 
This we have conceded all the while. But this is a very 
different thing from changing the radical meaning of 
the terms. In all his array of authorities not one has 
denied that these terms do include the idea of eternity 
— not one. In my opening argument on the use of these 
terms, I conceded all that he has in reality proven by 
all his herculean efforts upon these words. I admitted 
from the first that these terms are sometimes used in an 
accommodated sense ; but never in their duplicated 
forms, or when preceded by eis. I have also shown by 
the surrounding conditions that they could not be so 
used in certain passages which I have introduced. 

He alludes to the five brethren. He does not agree 
with brother Snook ; but thinks the " five brethren " 
were put in to fill up the illustration, and that the Rich 
Man represents the Scribes and Pharisees, and the five 
brethren the rest of the Jews. Now as to that matter 



398 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

of his difference between him and his Bro. Snook, I 
will leave them to settle it between themselves. But I 
do not think you will accept his explanation as setting 
forth the meaning of the u five brethren " in the para- 
ble. Indeed he gave none. But here he gives up the 
old ground that the Rich Man represents the entire 
Jewish nation. Pretty soon he will come to the truth, 
and admit the individual, but not the national, appli- 
cation of the passage. 

My friend claims that this part of the figure is sim- 
ply used to fill out the illustration. Now, while figures 
ought not to go upon all fours, yet they ought to be 
rendered so as to be consistent and sensible. And these 
u five brethren " fill as real a place in this figure, if it 
be such, as does Abraham, to whom Universalists give 
a very important place in their interpretation of the 
passage. The truth is that it represents individual and 
not national conditions. But since Christ always 
founded his figures on the real and probable, and not 
on the mythological or absurd, we are not at liberty to 
suppose any part of the figure impossible, or even im- 
probable, as would necessarily be the case with the "five 
brethren, " on the old Universalist " Jew and Gentile" 
interpretation of the passage. For Lazarus would 
then represent all the Gentiles, and Dives all the Jews, 
thus leaving nobody that could possibly be represented 
by the "five brethren." That is to accuse Christ of 
teaching by false and impossible metaphors, which we 
deny. We make no point on the particular number 
five. He may call it one or a thousand for ought we 
care ; but what is the meaning ? 

He introduces Bro. Campbell and others on hades, 
tartarus, sheol, etc. But I fail to see that these authors 
give him any aid, or differ essentially from the posi- 
tions I have taken. There is a relation, of course, be- 
tween the grave, hades, and gehenna, but this latter is 
not a part of either of the former. As we have fully 



MR. CARPENTER^ SEVENTH SPEECH. 399 

f 

proven, it came to represent the eternal place of pun- 
ishment of the wicked, before Christ's advent into the 
world. Tartarus, and the lower sheol of the earlier 
Hebrews, represented the place of the wicked spirits 
from death till the resurrection and judgment, just as 
our county jails serve as prisons till the final judgment 
of the court sends the criminal to the State's prison 
proper. So after the resurrection and judgment these 
temporary and provisional hells will be destroyed ; but 
this leaves the final hell, the gehenna, the " bottomless 
pit," the place prepared for the devil and his angels," 
the only eternal hell for which we have contended. So 
you see my opponent does not get rid of hell so easily 
as he would desire. 

That those who heard Christ and his apostles in the 
use of these terms, understood them as we have stated, 
there can be no question ; the evidence is too over- 
whelming to admit of a doubt. It is equally eviden.t 
that these used the very strongest words of duration 
and the strongest forms and figures to express the final 
condition of the wicked possible in the language in 
which they spoke. Our translators, too, have exhausted 
the resources of the English language in their render- 
ing of these words and phrases. 

We confess that we have become very skeptical 
about crediting the brother's representations of the 
teaching of authors. We have had abundant reason 
for this caution when we remember how he persist- 
ently perverts our remarks concerning the 24th of Mat- 
thew, Bro. Campbell's position concerning the coming 
of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, Prof. 
Lewis's position on the force of duplicates and plurals 
for emphasis or increased effect, not giving new mean- 
ing to the terms, President Milligan on several points, 
and even Dr. Edward Beecher who gives the flat denial 
in the quotations we have made from him, to the rep- 
resentations of my opponent. By the perversions and 



400 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

misuse of all these and others, we may judge how 
fairly he treats the Scriptures. We repeat, that after 
all we have witnessed in this regard, we have a right 
to be a little skeptical of Bro. Hughes' use of quota- 
tions. 

Then, there is Paul's wishing to be accursed from 
Christ. Here, again, he puts words into my mouth. 
I simply said that whatever the "cutting off" might 
mean it was to be endless. But he thinks Paul was 
willing only to be separated from Christ for his breth- 
ren's sake for a short time. Then he was not so gen- 
erous after all ! and there was very little force in what 
he paid. But he meant more than that. He meant 
what was a dreadful reality, and he uses the term to 
give expression to the unspeakable desire he had for 
the salvation of his brethren and the wonderful inter- 
est he had in them as his brethren according to the 
flesh. He wished to say that he was willing to endure 
an endless separation from Christ, if it would but be 
the means of benefitting them. And the brother's in- 
terpretation takes all the force and meaning out of this 
expression of Paul's. But whether the apostle did 
really wish to be accursed, or only expressed his great 
devotion to his people, does not effect the meaning of 
the term anathema. Neither does the Syriac mar-an- 
atha attached to it. This last only denotes the time of 
the event, and does not change the meaning of anatJie- 
ma. It shows this, however, that the cursing is to be 
when the Lord comes to judgment, and the anathema 
fixes the fact that there can then be no redemption. 

By the way, why does he now talk of the flames of 
hell, torment, etc., when a little while ago he argued 
that I had conceded there is no hell but that of con- 
science ? But both these are false. I have said nei- 
ther. I said in my opening speech that a this punish- 
ment includes a banishment from the peaceful presence 
of God." 



401 

He speaks of the Targums, as though Jonathan ben 
Uzziel, of the fourth century, was their author, where- 
as, he was only a compiler and a translator. These 
Targums reach far back into Jewish history. At least 
to the Babylonish captivity. In proof of this, I refer 
to Chambers's, Kitto's, Smith's, Encj^clopedias, and 
other authorities. These Targums are quoted in the 
Talmud, which dates its first writing about A. D. 120. 
Bro. Hughes, you will have to do better than that, if 
you expect to blind the minds of this people. 

In reference to Lange's remark respecting Christ's 
coming quickly, he speaks of German mysticism, and 
says that Lange indulges in mysticism in his comment 
there. Yet he has quoted this author time after time. 
Has he just now discovered his mysticism ? But then 
I have said that the great majority of Commentators 
fix about the year 70, after Christ, as the time of the 
destruction oi Jerusalem, and that they are almost all 
agreed that John was banished under Domitian, and 
that the book of Revelation was written probably 
about A. D. 96, or some 26 years after the destruction 
of Jerusalem. That consequently that event could 
not be there referred to by the Revelator, and, there- 
fore, what he says in the Apocalypse there, must mean 
some future coming of Christ. . Hence, Lange's lan- 
guage is not inappropriate, and my brother's allusion 
to German mysticism does not come in there at all. 

But he is going to prove that Jerusalem was standing 
ing when the Revelations were written,because of John's 
being told to measure the city. But that very Script- 
ure to which he refers is quoted by Mr. TlTayer, and 
referred to the resurrection state, away over beyond 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and so either Mr. Thay- 
er or my friend Hughes is wrong in the application of 
that passage. 

But let us read what is said about the city that John 
was to measure. 
26 



402 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

I read from Eev. 21 : 10-19 ; 

" And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high moun- 
tain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending 
out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, and her light was 
like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as 
crystal ; and had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and 
at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the 
names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel ; on the east 
three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on 
the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve founda- 
tions, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.' 
And lie that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, 
and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth four- 
square, and the length is as large as the breadth ; and he measured 
the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length, and 
the breadth, and the height of it are equal. And he measured the 
wall thereof,a hundred and forty and four cubits,aecording to the mea- 
sure of a man, that is, of the angel. And the building of the wall 
of it was of jasper, and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 
And the foundations of the walls of the city were garnished with 
all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper, the 
second, sapphire, the third, a chalcedony, the fourth, an emerald." 

Now I never knew that the names of the twelve 
apostles were found in the foundation stones of the lit- 
eral Jerusalem, when the city was turned up by Titus! 
I never knew that there were just twelve gates, and 
twelve angels at the gates of the literal city ! And if 
the brother will make the computation he will find 
that the city described there was about 375 miles long, 
about 375 miles broad, and about 375 miles high. 
Some make the computation much greater. Why, 
that would have covered all the country around Jeru- 
salem ! The thing is so supremely ridiculous I will 
not proceed. 

Mr. Hughes. — I did not quote that passage at all, 
but a passage in the eleventh chapter of Revelation. 

Mr. Carpenter. — I thought you did, but it makes 
little difference, since it was the same city that was 
measured. And, mark you, that the events described 
are yet future. 

He refers to the argument from Scriptural antithesis, 



MR. CARPENTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 403 

and he makes an argument to show that the arms of 
the beam in Rom. 6 : 22, 23, are not equal. He says 
the wages of sin and the gift of God are contrasted, and 
that the gift of God is something more than the wages 
of sin. But they are equal in duration, brother. They 
are both eternal. It is true the words " eternal death" 
are not there, but their equivalents are found else- 
where. " These shall go away into everlasting punish- 
ment, but the righteous into life eternal." Matt. 25: 46. 
And he cannot escape the force of that argument. I 
challenge him, by any fair argument, to set it aside. 

He talks about a " dilemma. 7 ' I did not see any 
dilemma. He talks about " horns." I have heard all 
that kind of thing before, often. He probably feels 
their goadings, hence speaks ot them so frequently. I 
do not think he will impale me on any of his " horns." 

Well, he says pardon applies to past sins. But does 
it relieve a person of any punishment that he would 
otherwise receive ? That is the question. May be the 
brother believes in vicarious atonement. And if he 
believes that, and believes in the application of the 
blood of Christ to the removal of sin in any real and 
proper sense, I shall be very glad. 

Bro. Hughes thinks that Rev. 19 : 19-21 cannot refer 
to the future, because the beast and the false prophets 
were to be cast alive into the lake of fire and brim- 
stone, and the slain dead were to be eaten with fowls. 
So far as the latter is concerned, the context shows that 
it was done before the casting into that which we claim 
is in the other world, and we see no impropriety in 
saying that the beast and the false prophet should be 
thrown alive into the eternal burning, since of certain 
righteous it is said that they shall not taste death, but 
shall be changed, or translated, as we understand it, as 
were Enoch and Elijah. So the beast and the false 
prophet shall be cast into this burning without passing 
through the grave. 



404 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

He has presented several things in the way of objec- 
tions to endless punishment, that I hope to have time 
to refer to. I was a little amused at one thing, viz., 
that he got a chance in his argument to-day to preach 
us one of his sermons. It was apparent some time 
since that he was out of argument. I hope before he 
is through he will preach us another one of his old ser- 
mons. It will help considerably to fill up the time and 
to occupy your attention whether it helps his argument 
or not. [Time expired.] 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH REJOINDER. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — I certainly would not 
have dropped that little remark I did this forenoon 
about my brother getting the assistance of his brethren 
if I had thought it would have hurt his feelings so 
badly. I admit that it was wrong, because too much 
in the spirit of retaliation, and I know that I ought to 
return good for evil. But I did it, because he said I 
had better refer some matters to my old brethren ; and 
so I thought it would be well enough for him to get 
the assistance of his brethren ; and now, I suppose, we 
are even on that. 

My friend says that gehenna did formerly mean the 
valley of the son of Hinnom. We are agreed on that. 
Well, that was its literal — its first meaning. Then it 
came to have a secondary meaning and signified tempo- 
ral punishment. In Jeremiah, 19th chapter,we have the 
application of it as a figure, descriptive of the tempo- 
ral calamities coming on the Jewish nation and people, 
and showing so plainly that no one can doubt, the sec- 
ondary meaning, which was received in the times of 
the prophets. I will read that chapter : 

" Thus saith the Lord, Go and get a potter's earthern bottle, and 
take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests 



SEVENTH REJOINDER. 405 

and go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the 
entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell 
thee ; and say, Hear ye-the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah, 
and inhabitants of Jerusalem ; thus saith the Lord of hosts, the 
God of Israel, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which 
whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. Because they have forsaken 
me, and have estranged this place, and have burnt incense in it 
unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, 
nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of 
innocents ; they have built also the high places of Baal, to burn 
their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I command- 
ed not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind; therefore, behold 
the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called 
Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of 
slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusa- 
lem in this place ; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before 
their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives ; and 
their carcasses will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, 
and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate, 
and an hissing ; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished 
and hiss because of the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to 
eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they 
shall eat every one the flesh of his friend, in the seige and straitness, 
wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives,shall straiten 
them. Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that 
go with thee, and shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, 
Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a pot- 
ter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again ; and they shall bury 
them in Tophet till there be no place to bury. Thus will I do unto 
this place, saith the Lord, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even 
make this city as Tophet ; and the houses of Jerusalem, and the 
houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, 
because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense 
unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto 
other gods. Then came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the Lord 
had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the Lord's 
house, and said to all* the people, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the 
God of Israel, Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her 
towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they 
have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words." 

Now here the breaking of the bottle was to be the 
emblem of war and desolation, and Jerusalem and 
Judah were to be broken as the bottle, and the car- 
casses were to be buried in Tophet (gehenna) until there 
should be no place to bury. Also in the 7th chapter 
of the same prophecy, (verses 26-34) we have the same 



406 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

application of this figure, in which no one can fail to 
see its symbolical use : 

" Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem, and cast it away, and take up a 
lamentation on high places; for the Lord hath rejected and forsaken 
the generation of his wrath. For the children of Judah have done 
evil in my sight, saith the Lord ; they have set their abominations 
in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they 
have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the 
son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire ; 
which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. There- 
fore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be 
called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley 
of slaughter, for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. 
And the carcasses of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the 
heaven, and for the leasts of the earth ; and none shall fray them 
away. Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and 
from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of 
gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for 
the land shall be desolate." 

To this there is also a very plain allusion in Isa. 66 : 
23, 24 : 

*' And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, 
and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship be- 
fore me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the 
carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me ; for their 
worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they 
shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." 

Here the people were to go forth and look upon the 
carcasses of the slain lying exposed in the valley of 
the son of Hinnom, where was the undying worm and 
the fire that is not quenched. But it is certain that 
this does not refer to punishment in the future world, 
because it is while there are " new moons " and " sab- 
baths " that they were to go forth and look upon the 
" carcasses" of the transgressors, and there are no 
" new moons" and " sabbaths " in eternity ; nor " car- 
casses," for if they are ever raised from the dead, they 
are carcasses no longer. And it is not at all likely that 
the saved of heaven are to go forth and look upon the 
carcasses of those in hell ! 

Now gehenna has these two meanings. Its first is the 



ME. hughes' seventh kejoikder. 407 

literal one, and means the valley of the son of Hinnom ; 
the second is figurative, and signifies the temporal ca- 
lamities coming upon the Jewish people. It was a 
punishment peculiar to them. None but Jews were 
ever threatened with gehenna punishment. It, there- 
fore, devolves upon my brother to show that it had a 
third meaning in the times of the Saviour; that it was 
then used in the sense of a place of endless punish- 
ment. But there is no book in which the word is used 
in that sense earlier than three or four centuries after 
Christ. It is true that some commentators have said 
that it had acquired that meaning in the time of Christ, 
and was so used by Christ ; but this I deny, and he 
must show that they are correct. They had no evi- 
dence for their assertions on that point. I repeat that 
this word does not occur in the sense of a place of end- 
less misery in the Jewish Scriptures, in the Apocry- 
pha, in Joseph us, Philo, or any other Jewish writ- 
ings extant, until it occurs in the Targum of Jonathan 
ben Uzziel. But that Targum was not in existence in 
the times of the Saviour, as I have shown from Bishop 
Home, and Dr. Smith's Bible Dictionary. From their 
evidence it appears that it was certainly not written 
before the second century, and, as some say, not before 
the third or fourth century after Christ. 

I claim then that the word gehenna was used by Christ 
in the same sense as by the prophets ; and used by him 
in the representation of the "great time of trouble " 
then impending, and which was to come upon that 
people before that generation should pass away. 

I will read from his discourse to the Jews in Matt. 
23 : 32-36 : 

" Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye 
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and 
scribes ; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of 
them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from 
city to city ; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed 



408 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of 
Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and 
the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon 
this generation." 

Now here is the punishment of gehenna, a condem- 
nation coming upon them y not a hell to which they were 
going; and it was to come upon them before that gen- 
eration was to pass away. " Verily I say unto you, 
all these things shall come upon this generation." The 
punishment of gehenna was one of " these things'' that 
was to come upon them. There was a culmination of 
the sin of that people in that generation, the cup of 
their iniquity was full, and a culmination of woe, 
wretchedness, and punishment was to come upon that 
generation, and gehenna was its emblem. 

But my friend says that the body is cast into hell, 
also, and that body and soul are punished together. 
That we have the destruction of both soul and body in 
hell. Matt. 10 : 28 ■; Luke 12 : 4, 5. If so, then those 
who are cast into hell are destroyed both soul and 
body : for Christ speaks of " destroying both soul and 
body in hell." " Fear not them which kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
Now to kill the body is to take the life of the body, and 
to kill the soul is to take the life of the soul. Man can 
do the one, but he cannot do the other. But what man 
is not able to do, God can do. " He is able to destroy 
both soul and body in hell." It is impossible to under- 
stand the destruction of the body to be anything short 
of the death of the body ; and can the destruction of 
the soul be anything less? The brother's application 
of this passage to the future world lands him in anni- 
hilation ! Make destruction of soul and body an 
expression meaning complete temporal destruction in 
the calamities soon to come upon that people, and all 
is then plain. Will he accept the logical result of his 



ME. HUGHES' SEVENTH REJOINDER. 409 

argument ? He is certainly wrong in his application 
of those passages. 

11 The condition of the fallen angels." Now if he 
was called upon to say something about the condition 
of the fallen angels, like the heathen, they would not 
be in his proposition ! But I will say that Jude 6, 7, 
has no reference to the fall of angels from heaven. 
Now you will notice that after speaking of the angels 
that sinned Jude says : 

" Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in 
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after 
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of 
eternal fire." 

Now he says the Sodomites sinned in " like manner" 
or in a manner "like to these," as McKnight renders it. 
In a manner like to whom ? Why in a manner like 
unto these angels of whom he had spoken just before. 
The sin committed was "giving themselves over to 
fornication, and going after strange flesh," a sin that 
spirits cannot commit; and so there were no angels in 
the case, and the brother has simply misinterpreted the 
passage. I will say further that the passage does not 
prove that those spoken of there are to be punished 
endlessly. " O yes ; but there is the word aidios, used 
there," my brother will say, "and that means endless- 
ly." Well, I admit that the word aidios means eternal, 
in the unlimited sense, but as it is applied to the angels 
here, it does not prove that they will be bound in these 
chains endlessly; for they are only " reserved in ever- 
lasting (aidios) chains under darkness unto the judg- 
ment of the great day." At the time of this day of 
judgment they will be released from the "everlasting 
chains," and the passage asserts nothing farther of 
them. He can never prove endless misery by the word 
aidios as used in that passage. 

Bro. Carpenter contends that aion, in the accusative, 
and aidnioSy preceded by eis, always mean unlimited 



410 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

duration, and he quotes Robinson to prove it. I Avill 
show the fallacy of such a statement by a single case. 
Christ's kingdom is called everlasting in 2 Peter 1:11. 
" For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you 
abundantly into the everlasting kingdom (eis tan aio.nion 
basileian) of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 
Here is aidnios preceded by eis y and it is used as de- 
scriptive of Christ's kingdom, and yet it does not 
mean that Christ's kingdom is to endure endlessly. Paul 
says, " Then cometh the end when he shall have deliv- 
ered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." 
Christ's kingdom then is to have an end. Alexander 
Campbell says : " The kingdom which Jesus has re- 
ceived from his Father, however heavenly, sublime, 
and glorious it may be regarded, is only temporal. It 
had a beginning, and it will have an end; for he must 
reign only till all enemies are put under his feet." 
Christian System, page 147. 

I have found a case, then, where aidnios is preceded 
by eis, where it does not mean unlimited duration, 
enough to refute his claim. 

He refers to Rev. 20 . 10 : 

" And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall 
be tormented day and night forever and ever." 

He does not know what I understand by " day and 
night " there. Well, I will say to him that in eter- 
nity there is neither day nor night, that these terms 
are applied to the periods marked by the revolution of 
the earth on its axis, and so the recurrence of day and 
night in time. Therefore these terms belong to time, 
and the punishment here referred to must be in time. 
Mark that ! 

Now, the brother says these matters are realities, 
and not merely figures as I have contended. Then we 
have a literal lake of fire and brimstone, and the great 
red dragon that was cast into it is a real being with his 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH REJOINDER. 411 

seven heads, and ten horns, and a tail that drew the 
third part of the stars of heaven. And as the dragon 
is called "that old serpent, which is the devil and sa- 
tan/' so we have a description of my friend's personal 
devil ; and a curious sort of a being he is ! 

But the interpretation of the dragon is that the 
" seven heads " are " seven mountains/' and that the 
"ten horns" are " ten kings." (Rev. 17 : 5-12.) So 
the dragon is a symbol of an earthly power or powers, 
and as I believe of a religious power. So the lake of 
fire is also a symbol, a symbol of the destruction of 
these powers ; and consequently the lake of fire and 
brimstone in which the beast and false prophet are 
cast, and where the dragon, called the devil, is tor- 
mented, has no reference to his hell of fire in which 
men are to be tormented endlessly in the future world. 

He quotes a number of commentators to prove that 
there is a personal devil. Suppose he should turn 
around and ask Bro. Dungan there, if baptism was for 
the remission of sins? Bro. Dungan will say, "Yes, 
sir," and so he has that point proved ! Of course those 
commentators believe in a personal devil, but that is 
no proof for him. He refers to Dr. Barnes as to 
whether there is a personal devil, and Dr. Barnes says 
there is ! Does that prove it ? Why, I can prove that 
there is no personal devil by that process of reasoning. 
Dr. Paige says there is no personal devil. He must 
find better proof than that, or he will fail on that ques- 
tion. Now I believe all that the Bible says about dev- 
ils, and yet I do not believe in a great personal devil 
almost equal to God ! Nor does the passages he quotes 
prove the existence of a personal devil, with seven 
heads, ten horns, a cloven foot, and tremendous .reach 
•of tail, to which my friend is here committed. 
But I will tell you how all these commentators differ 
from the Bible in reference to the devil. Paul say he 
is to be destroyed : 



412 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, 
he also himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death 
he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil." 
Heb. 2 : 14. 

Now, as the devil is to be destroyed, how is my 
friend and his witnesses going to have him live for- 
ever and suffer endless punishment in a lake of 
fire and brimstone. Now I don't see how the devil is 
to be punished endlessly after he is destroyed ! 

My brother refers to the fall of angels from heaven. 
But if angels have fallen from heaven once they may 
again, and so finally all heaven will be depopulated ! 
There is no security in heaven according to his theory ! 
Elder J. L. Martin, in his Voice of Seven Thunders, p. 
269, says : " Men and angels are rational moral agents 
worshiping God from choice, choosing whether they 
will obey the Lord, or let it alone— with the condition 
placed before them, to serve God, and live eternally, or 
let it alone, and be miserable and damned forever." If 
angels are free to fall, and have fallen, with nothing to 
tempt them in a pure and holy heaven, so they may 
again, and there is no security for them. Even when 
the word eternal is applied to the condition and happi- 
ness of the righteous in heaven, it does not prove the 
permanency of it ; for my opponent admits that the 
word eternal is applied to life in this world, and that 
those who have it may lose it. So even the words he 
so much relies on to prove the endlessness of the hap- 
piness of the righteous, give him no support : and 
he can promise security in heaven to no class of beings. 
All of this is true if angels have once fallen from hea- 
ven. If there has been a revolt in heaven, there may 
be another revolt there ; and if my brother gets there, 
he may be drawn away and fall. We read in Rev. 
12th of a war in heaven in which Michael and his an- 
gels fought against the dragon and his angels — the 
dragon whose tail drew the third part of the stars of 
heaven, and did cast them to the ground. Now these 



ME. HUGHES* SEVENTH REJOINDER. 413 

stars are said to be the angels, so that one-third of the an- 
gels were swept from heaven by that one revolt, accord- 
ing to my brother's theory ! But there may be another 
revolt, and another devil may sweep out another third 
of the heavenly host with his tail of magnificent pro- 
portions, and then two-thirds of them would be gone ; 
and still another devil might revolt and draw away the 
remaining third of heaven's inhabitants, and so all 
would be finally cast out ! ! That is to what the theory 
of the brother in reference to the devil and fallen an- 
gels leads him in his literal application of these mat- 
ters in the Apocalypse. 

He introduces an argument on difference in the judg- 
ment and resurrection. But he has not yet proven a 
general judgment after the resurrection : nor has he 
proven a difference in character in the resurrection, 
when the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and God is 
all in all. 

Bro. Carpenter quotes in support of a material resur- 
rection, several cases of raising from the dead : such as 
Jairus's daughter, the son of the widow of Nain, Laz- 
arus, and the opening of the graves at the time of the 
resurrection of Christ. Now, these were but special 
cases ; the persons thus raised all died again. He can- 
not prove a literal physical resurrection to immortality 
from any of these cases. 

Now, in 2 Cor. 5 : 1, 2, it is said : 

"Forwe know that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were 
dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, 
eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to 
be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven." 

The " earthly house of this tabernacle " is the body. 
But the apostle says, that when this house is dissolved 
by death then we have a "house not made with hands, 
eternal in the heavens ; " and he earnestly desired "to 
be clothed upon with his house which is from heaven." 
This house (^the resurrection body) was to come from 



414 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

heaven. Bro. Carpenter says it is to come up out of 
the ground ! Quite a difference. 

The apostle again says, (1 Cor. 15 : 35), " But some 
man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with 
what body do they come ? " The very question before 
us ; and he answers (verses 36-44) : 

" Thou fool, that which thou so west is not quickened, except it 
die ; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that 
shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some 
other grain ; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, 
and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh ; but 
there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another 
of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and 
bodies terrestrial ; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory 
of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and an- 
other glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one 
star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection 
of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption ; 
it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it 
is raised in power ; it is sown a natural body, it'is raised a spiritual 
body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." 

Now, Bro. Carpenter says that it is the body that is 
sown that comes up in the resurrection. But St. Paul 
says distinctly, definitely, " thou sowest not that body 
that shall be ! w He says that it is not the natural 
body that is to be raised, but that in the resurrection, 
we are to have spiritual, heavenly, glorious, and in- 
corruptible bodies. The brother's doctrine contradicts 
the doctrine of the apostle Paul. 

He says I can settle the matter about the "five breth- 
ren " with Bro. Snook. I see he is very anxious to 
get that settlement off from his hands just as quickly 
as possible. I do not think that Bro. Snook and I will 
have any material difference on that question ; so he 
need not concern himself on that question. 

He still insists that Paul was willing to be eternally 
cursed for his brethren's sake. Why, just think of it! 
Paul ready to be eternally separated from Christ, and 
go to the companionship of adulterers, murderers, liars, 
thieves, and every kind of vile and abominable char- 



415 

acters, and live there forever for the sake of his breth- 
ren ! Did Paul mean that ? Never ! And he can 
never make you believe any such thing. 

On the date of the book of Revelation, my oppo- 
nent says Guericke is the source of all the mistake 
there. But Dr. Stowe shows, as we have already said, 
how the misapprehension occurred concerning the tes- 
timony of Ireneaus as to the time ef John's banish- 
ment to the isle of Patmos, in the confounding the em- 
peror Domitian with Nero Claudius Domitius, or Domit- 
ianus. Dr. Stowe and Prof. Stuart, who both follow 
Guericke, fix the date of the book of Revelation in 
the reign of Nero, and before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, and Alexander Campbell says of Prof. Stuart 
that he is the most erudite Biblical critic in Europe 
or America. 

But that four square city ! Does my friend think 
heaven is in the shape of a cube ? But he mistook me 
entirely there. I quoted from the 11th chapter of Rev- 
elation, where we read of a reed being given to John 
to measure the temple, and altar, etc. Now does my 
opponent mean to say that Jerusalem and the temple 
were destroyed when that was written ? And that the 
only Jerusalem referred to was the four-square Jeru- 
salem of the 21st chapter ? I say Jerusalem was then 
standing, and the temple, or John could not have mea- 
sured it, as devoting it to destruction. There are "two 
witnesses " also spoken of, who were to prophecy in 
that city a thousand, two hundred and three score days ; 
and when their testimony was finished, the beast that 
ascended out of the bottomless pit, was to make war 
upon them, and overcome them, and kill them, " And 
their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great 
city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where 
also our Lord was crucified." Rev. 11: 3-8. That 
means Jerusalem. Jerusalem that was to be "trodden 
under foot of the Gentiles forty and two months," and 



416 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

cannot be applied to any other place, nor to any other 
Jerusalem. For the New Jerusalem was not to be 
trodden under foot of the Gentiles forty and two 
months, neither was Christ crucified in it, nor is it 
called " spiritually Sodom or Egypt." 

He refers again to Rom. 6 : 23, " The wages of sin 
is death," etc. You will remember that I asked him 
whether there was any life in that death ; but he does 
not like to say whether there was or not. For if Adam 
died completely, and that too a spiritual death, then 
Adam was totally depraved, a doctrine my brother does 
not believe. And if totally depraved, he has not 
shown that it was possible for him to be punished. But 
if there was still some good left in him, there was 
something in him that was attracted towards God, and 
he might be fina ly saved, and the brother's argument 
that death means eternal punishment fails altogether. 
That is the reason why he is so careful not to commit 
himself either way on that question. 

Again, if Adam was totally depraved, then all man- 
kind are totally depraved also; and none but God can 
convert and save them, for nothing short of Omnipo- 
tence could raise them from such a death. If, there- 
fore, all men are not converted, God only is responsi- 
ble for it. That is the uncomfortable position my 
brother's logic places him in ! 

But he says according to the law of antithesis eterrMl 
death must be understood in Rom. 6 : 23, as opposed 
to eternal life. Why did not the apostle say so then? 
But he cannot find the phrase " eternal death" any- 
where in the Bible ; and I have already shown you 
that his position on that passage, and so therefore on 
all his antithetical passages, is untenable. That the 
arms of the balances are not equal, that f< death" in 
those passages is limited, because they pass from it unto 
life. John 5 : 24. 

You will remember also that the day before yester- 



417 

day that he admitted that all that was lost in Adam was 
regained in Christ. Then if Adam died an eternal 
death, all that we lost by the first Adam was regained 
in the second Adam ; so all mankind are to be raised 
in Christ to eternal life, Universalism is therefore true 
on his own admission. 

I believe I am through with his speeches. Bro. Mod- 
erators, what time have I ? 

Moderators. — About ten minutes. 

Mr. Hughes. — Very well ; then I will preach 
another sermon for the benefit of my brother Carpen- 
ter. 

Mr. Carpenter. — I hope it will be a good one. 

Mr. Hughes. — I think you will say that it is a good 
one when I am through. 

I will now resume my negative argument where I 
left off in my former speech. 

VI. Endless punishment is contrary to the pur- 
poses of divine punishment. 

God's government is founded on the eternal princi- 
ples of infinite benevolence and justice. " Justice and 
judgment are the habitation of thy throne ; mercy and 
truth shall go before thy face." Ps. 89 : 14. 

It is administered on the principle of good will to 
man, and for his good and highest happiness. "The 
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the 
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the sim- 
ple." Ps. 19 : 7. 

The penalties of the divine government are not an 
arbitrary, revengeful cede, inflicted for the injury of 
man; but for his good, to enforce obedience to the di- 
vine law, and to discipline and educate him to fulfill its 
requirements. " Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy; 
for thou renderest to every man according to his work." 
Ps. 62 : 12. "I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are 
right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me." 
Ps. 119 : 75. " It is good for me that I have been af- 



418 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

flicted; that I might learn thy statutes." Verse 11. 
" Before I was afflicted I went astray^ but now have I 
kept thy word." Verse 67. These passages set forth 
very clearly the object and the intention of the penal- 
ties of God's government. Even the severest of God's 
punishments represented by the most terrible of all 
imagery — by fire — is for the sinner's reformation. I 
will quote a few passages in illustration : 

" But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand 
Avhen he appeareth ? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers'* 
soap ; and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; and he 
shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, 
that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." 
Mai. 3:2, 3. _ 

" And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away 
thy dross, and take away all thy tin ; and I will restore thy judges 
as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning ; afterward 
thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city. Zi- 
on shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with right- 
eousness." Isa. 1 : 25-27. 

" When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daugh- 
ters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the 
midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burn- 
ing." Isa. 4 : 4. 

Again, punishment unto death, the destruction of 

the flesh, delivering over to Satan, are intended for the 

good of the offenders : 

" The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of 
them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel. For all this they 
sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works. Therefore 
their days did he consume in vanity, and their years in trouble. 
When he slew them, then they sought him ; and they returned and 
enquired early after God." Ps. 78 : 31-34. 

"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered to- 
gether, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to 
deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that 
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 1 Cor. 5 : 
4, 5. 

" Holding faith, and a good conscience, which some having put 
away, concerning faith have made shipwreck; of whom is Hymenius 
and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may 
learn not to blaspheme." 1 Tim. 1 : 19, 20. 

" Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted 
of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and 



419 

comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with 
overmuch sorrow." 2 Cor. 2 : 6, 7. 

Even man's own wickedness is made to correct him, 
and because of God's judgments men learn righteous- 
ness : 

" Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings 
shall reprove thee ; know therefore and see that it is an evil thing 
and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my 
fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts." Jer. 2 : 19. 

" With my soul I have desired thee in the night ; yea, with my 
spirit within me will I seek thee early ; for when thy judgments are 
in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." 
Isa. 26 : 9. 

" I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their 
offence, and seek my face ; in their affliction they will seek me ear- 
ly." Hosea 5:15. 

" Saying to a stock, Thou art my father ; and to a stone, Thou 
hast brought me forth ; for they have turned their back unto me, 
and not their face : but in the time of their trouble they will say, 
Arise and save us." Jer. 27. 

God's punishments are the chastisements of a father 

who corrects his children in love : 

" And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you 
as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the 
Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him ; for whom the Lord 
loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons ; for 
what son is he whom the father chasteneth not ? But if ye be with- 
out chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, 
and not sons. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh, which 
corrected us, and we gave them reverence ; shall we not much rather 
be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live ? For they ver- 
ily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure, but he for 
our profit, that we might be partakers of his holinesss Now no 
chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous ; nev- 
ertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness 
unto them which are exercised thereby." Heb. 12 : 5-11. 

"He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that 
teacheth man knowledge, shall not he knoAV ? " Ps. 94 : 10. 

" Lord, in trouble have they visited thee ; they poured out a 
prayer when thy chastening was upon them." Isa. 26 : 16. . 

The idea is very clearly held out here, that, not only 
is punishment for man's profit, and that he might be 
partaker of God's holiness, but that the end had in 



420 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

view will finally be attained. " Afterward it yieldeth 
the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them who are 
exercised thereby." Punishment being reformatory, 
it cannot be endless. Endless chastisement is an ab- 
surdity. 

VII. Were the doctrine of endless misery true, it 
would render perfect bliss, an unalloyed happiness, an 
impossibility even in heaven, without a complete de- 
struction of all the finer feelings, affections, and sym- 
pathies of the human heart. The temporal loss of 
friends with the hope of meeting them hereafter, makes 
us unhappy. Would it be possible for us to be other- 
wise than miserable in the thought that when death 
takes them it will be an eternal separation ? Make 
this fear a terrible reality hereafter, if we are permit- 
ted the heavenly country, will heaven be heaven to us 
then? 

" The warp and woof of all destinies are woven fast, 
Linked in sympathy, like the keys in an organ vast, 
Pluck one thread, and the web you mar; 
Break but one of a thousand keys, 
And the paining jar through all will run." 

Can it be that all these social sympaties are lost 
in heaven? That all that makes us true and kind, 
good and Christ-like in this world, will be dead 
and cold in heaven? Is it possible that the love 
of family, of wife, and child, of our kindred, is 
all to be annihilated, that the fires of hell may be 
kept burning, and the saints glorify God in a selfish, 
unsympathizing heaven ? We call the man who can 
look upon suffering in this world unmoved, a cold, cal- 
lous fiend. Is that the character of saints in heaven, 
who exultingly shout, and care nothing for the unut- 
terable agony of kindred in hell? 

Who would accept heaven on such terms ? He who 
is willing to accept heaven alone, is not worthy of hea- 
ven. Nothing so ennobles a man as willingness to 



421 

sacrifice for the good of others, in the spirit of the 
great Master, who was rich but became poor for our 
sakes. 

" Is heaven so high 
That pity cannot breath its air ; 
Its happy eyes forever dry, 
Its holy lips without a prayer ? 
My God ! my God ! if thither led 
By thy free grace unmerited, 
No crown, or palm be mine ; 
But let me keep, 
A heart that still can feel, 
And eyes that still can weep." 

" Radbod, one of the old Scandinavian kings, after 
long resistance, finally consented to be baptized. Af- 
ter he had put one foot into the water, he asked the 
priest if he should meet his forefathers in heaven. 
Learning that they, being unbaptized pagans, were 
victims of endless misery, he drew his foot back, and 
refused the rite, choosing to be with his brave ances- 
tors in hell rather than to be in heaven with the Chris- 
tian priests." 

It seems to me that every good Christian man, who 
has attained the highest refinement of feeling and vir- 
tue, who has but a spark of the compassion of our dear 
Saviour, sanctifying his nature, could but say, "Hea- 
ven can be no heaven to me if I am to look down upon 
the eternal anguish of those I have loved here." [Time 
expired.] 

MB. CARPENTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 

Brethren Moderators: — I think you and the 
audience will bear me witness that I have done the ar- 
guing here principally, while my brother has been 
making some fun for us, and has been preaching us 
one of his old sermons ! I have only one particular 
objection to the sermon, and that is, we have -heard 
the same thing so often before. It is getting a little 



422 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

stale. I do not blame my brother for his course. I 
rather think he could do no better. Failing, there- 
fore, in his efforts at argument he has amused us with 
his dragon story, and kindred things, and then by way 
of exhortation read his sermon ! How often he has 
preached it to you before I know not. 

I will now resume my argument on the, resurrection 
where I left off in my last speech. 

Rom. 8: 11, is in proof of a literal resurrection: 

"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead 
dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." 

But why multiply proofs upon that which is the 
scoff of the infidel, but the hope of the Christian? 
We read in Acts 17 : 32 : 

" And when they [the Areopagites] heard of the resurrection of 
the dead, some mocked ; and others said, We will hear thee again of 
this matter." 

And here, I ask, what mother, what father, what 
friend, has not a child, a parent, a friend, some dear 
object of affection, whose body lies in the dust, and to 
whom this doctrine comes home with wonderful force? 
Go to your cemeteries, and even on the tombstones 
erected by our Universalist friends over their buried 
dead, you will read such mottoes as, " Them that sleep 
in Jesus will God bring with him," "I am the resur- 
rection and the life," " By man came death, by man 
came also the resurrection." You will see the index 
finger pointing upward, showing that even they be- 
lieve that the graves shall be opened, and the dead shall 
come out ot their graves. 

In Acts 23 : 6-8, we read : 

" But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and 
the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, 
I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ; of the hope and resurrec- 
tion of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, 
there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees ; 
and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is 



ME. CARPENTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 423 

no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit ; but the Pharisees confess 
both." 

Now here the resurrection of the body is the matter 
in dispute. This was denied by the ancient, as it is by 
the modern Sadducees; but Paul says that the Phari- 
sees, whose doctrine he avows, confess the truth — that 
very same t^uth which my brother denies, and which 
we " Orthodox believers" confess. 

In Acts 24 : 14, 15, it is said : 

" But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call 
heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things 
which are written in the law and in the prophets : and have hope 
toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a 
resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." 

This " hope," here expressed, centers in the redemp- 
tion of the body ; as only after that would he be fully 
rewarded. The hearer will also notice the clear dis- 
tinction made between the resurrection of the " just 
and unjust." 

From the grand argument on this subject in 1 Cor. 
15th chapter, I take the following extracts (verses 12- 
17): 

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say 
some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead ? But if 
there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen ; and 
if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain. Yea; and we are 
found false witnesses of God ; because we have testified of God that 
he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead 
rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised ; and if 
Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins." 

Verses 35, 36 : 

" But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with 
what body do they come ? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not 
quickened, except it die." 

Verses 42-44 : 

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corrup- 
tion, it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised 
in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power ; it is sown a 
natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, 
and there is a spiritual body" 



424 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

We will allow that Scripture to speak for itself. 

We have already sufficiently exhibited the doctrine 
of hades, or the intermediate state. 

But if it be asked whether the spirit comes from 
some other place to take its body, we read from Luke 
8 : 52-55, from the account of the raising of the ruler's 
daughter : 

"And all wept, and bewailed her ; but he said, Weep not ; she is 
not dead but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing 
that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the 
hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, 
and she arose straightway, and he commanded to give her meat." 

Having shown that the resurrection is literal and fu- 
ture, we, in the next place, proceed to show that the 
judgment is subsequent to the resurrection, hence fu- 
ture, after Christ's coming with his holy angels, and 
in glory. 

That his coming in his kingdom, as spoken of in Matt. 
16 : 28 ; Mark 9:1; Luke 9 : 27, is past we may ad- 
mit. But his coming with his holy angels to judg- 
ment, to reward " every man" is vet future. I quote 
in proof Matt. 16 : 26-28 : 

" For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world 
and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his 
soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father 
with his angels ; and then shall he reward every man according to 
his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, 
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming 
in his kingdom." 

Here, we repeat, the coming of the 27th verse is the 
consummation of the kingdom of the 28th verse. In 
Heb. 9 : 27, 28, it is said : 

" And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the 
judgment : so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and 
unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time with- 
out sin unto salvation." 

"After death ; " note that. 
We also quote Col. 3:4: 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 425 

" When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also 
appear with him in glory." 

And 1:13: 

" Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath 
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." 

Those who were in the earthly kingdom that had 
come (1 : 13) were waiting for his coming in glory for 
their reward (3:4). 

In addition, we refer to 1 Thes. 3:1; Phil. 3 : 20- 
21 ; 1 John 3:2; 1 Thes. 4: 16-18; Titus 2 : 11-13, 
and to parallel passages, bearing on the same point. 

It now only remains for us to show that the fates of 
men are different, as accorded at this judgment, and 
that this difference is endless. This difference is fully 
proven by the facts. The living and dead shall stand 
in judgment. Every one shall receive according to 
his works. (Rev. 20 : 13; 22: 12.) He shall sepa- 
rate the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25 : 32). Some 
shall share in the first resurrection ; some not. (Rev. 
20: 5). Some shall be subject to the second death ; 
some not. (Rev. 20 : 6). Some go to the " everlast- 
ing kingdom ; " others "to the place prepared for the 
devil and his angels." (Matt. 25 : 34-41). 

Even Universalists, with all their post mortem, gos- 
pel, restoration, progression, heavenly "reform school" 
notions, are compelled to admit that those who live 
best in this life will start upon the next life ahead in 
moral development, of those who had lived wickedly 
here under equal circumstances; and whatever of de- 
velopment and excellency they have lost by their 
wickedness, is just so much lost forever. They must 
eternally remain at least that much behind what they 
might have been. This loss they must ever attribute 
to their own sinfulness. This is, by Universalist show- 
ing, an endless punishment for sins. 

Mr. Manford says (Debate with Franklin, p. 16) : "I 
do believe that abusing or improving in talent in this 



426 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

world, will effect in some degree our future condition, I 
believe in degrees of glory hereafter." 

But we are not dependent upon Universalist conces- 
sions upon this point. As we have already shown the 
Bible most unequivocally and repeatedly asserts it, by 
words which we proved are the strongest terms in the 
English, or the original Greek and Hebrew; much 
stronger terms than " endless " in our proposition. 
" Everlasting punishment." (Matt. 25 : 46). " Ever- 
lasting contempt." (Dan. 12 : 2). " Forever and ever," 
(Rev. 20: 10). "Everlasting fire." (Matt. 18:8; 
Matt. 25:41). "Everlasting destruction." (2 Thes. 
1:9). "Everlasting chains." (Jude 6). "Eternal 
damnation." (Mark 3 : 29). We have also shown 
that these same terms measure the existence of God, 
the happiness of the righteous, etc. We believe this 
argument to be impregnable. Let my brother try his 
hand on it, if he will. By these words and phrases 
the punishment of the wicked is made to equal, in du- 
ration, the happiness of the righteous. 

I will now notice some things in my opponent's last 
speech. • 

He tells us of Radbod, the old Pagan, who refused 
to be baptized and enter the Church, after learning 
that his forefathers would not be with*him in heaven, 
Well, to refuse to obey the law of the Lord is just the 
spirit of paganism, and we regret to see that our Uni- 
versalist friends exhibit so much of the same spirit of 
rebellion. They, too, want God to conform to their 
ideas ; instead of being willing to conform to God's 
terms. 

You could but have noticed in the brother's argu- 
ment on the new and better covenant spoken of in 
Heb. 8 : 6, that he measures everything by the impu- 
nity that God will allow toward his law 7 , not the great- 
ness of the rewards of the obedient. 

He denies the doctrine of the resurrection of the 



MR. CARPENTER^ CLOSING SPEECH. 427 

body from the grave. But how was Christ raised from 
the dead? Was not his grave opened? Was not the 
stone rolled away from the door of the sepulcher ? 
Were not the grave clothes left lying there on the 
third morning? and was not the body gone? What 
are we to do with these passages that speak of the 
graves being opened, if the bodies rise not ? Now 
Paul refers to the resurrection of Christ as the assur- 
ance of ours. He says, " Now if Christ be preached 
that he rose from the dead, how say some among you 
that there is no resurrection of the dead ?" It seems 
some of them held my brother's doctrine then. But 
the apostle says, " If there be no resurrection of the 
dead, then is Christ not risen ; and if Christ be not 
risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is 
also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of 
God ; because we have testified of God that he raised 
up Christ ; whom he raised not up [I suppose my bro- 
ther does not believe that he was raised up,] if so be 
lhat the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then 
is not Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your 
faith is vain : ye are yet in your sins. Then they also 
which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in 
this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all 
men the most miserable.'' But then he declares, "But 
now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first 
fruits of them that slept" 1 Cor. 15:12-20. Now 
here Christ is declared to be raised from the dead, and 
we know how he was raised, and he is the "first fruits 
of them that slept;" and the second fruit will be like 
unto the first, so we shall also be raised by him. And 
yet my brother says there is no resurrection of the 
dead from the grave; but that we are to have a build- 
ing from heaven. We admit a clothing with a hea- 
venly immortality, which the apostle calls a building 
from heaven, a swallowing up of mortality by life. (2 
Cor. 5:4). But this does not conflict with the doc- 



428 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

trine of the resurrection so plainly taught by the same 
apostle. 

I again ask if Christ's body was not raised ? Was 
not this act called his resurrection f Is not this a 
pledge of the resurrection of our bodies ? Christ's 
body rose to a different state or condition ; but it was 
his identical body nevertheless. But we are told all 
the cases we have adduced were only temporary resur- 
rections ; that the parties all died again. Did Christ 
die again ? Can he prove that the saints who rose 
with him died again? I think not. But the tempo- 
rary resurrections differ from the final resurrection not 
so much in the manner of raising as in the condition 
to which the parties are raised. Bat why argue this 
fundamental Scriptural doctrine further? The Old 
Testament worthies believed it ; Martha at Lazarus's 
grave confessed it ; the Pharisees and other Jews be- 
lieved it ; Christ and his apostles taught it ; and 
Christ verified it by raising others and by his own res- 
urrection. 

Upon Jade 6th my opponent intimates that it is the 
chains, and not the punishment, that is eternal. But 
that little dodge fails of its purpose. Why have eter- 
nal chains if there is to be uo one bound with them? 
This I have asked before ; but for obvious reasons my 
brother has not answered it. The fact that these wicked 
spirits are bound till the judgment does not argue that 
they will not be bound after the judgment ; no more 
than the fact that criminals are kept in our jails till 
court sets, proves that they will not be imprisoned after 
a full judgment has been pronounced. But does my 
brother now yield his notion of a continuous day of 
judgment, and acknowledge a set time, still future, for 
the judgment to which these are reserved? 

He thinks I made a mistake concerning his quota- 
tion from Revelations. Perhaps I did. But if he will 
read the 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters, he will learn 



MR. carpenter's CLOSING SPEECH. 429 

the destiny of the beast and Satan. He will find out 
that these and wicked men are to be punished "forever 
and eve. 1 *," in that place "prepared for the devil and his 
angels," and which is not to be destroyed. 

He admits that he differs from the Commentators in 
reference to future punishment ; and I think it is now 
evident that he differs just as widely from the Bible. 

But he says that, according to brother Martin and 
myself, the angels fell, and, if so, he thinks we may 
fall too. What, does he now repudiate his future pro- 
bation doctrine? I have argued that our probation 
ends with this life ; but he would carry it into the fu- 
ture life. 

My opponent has talked much about things that are 
" unreasonable/' but I think the most unreasonable 
thing we have heard was his attempted argument under 
that head; at best it is but a rehash of his former 
speeches. 

He admits the doctrine of endless punishment by 
his position upon degrees in the future. You have not 
forgotten our argument upon A, B, and the one hun- 
dred degrees of difference. 

But then he talks about " day and night," etc. He 
says these expressions refer to time, and do not apply 
to the future. Well, I read of the saints " serving God 
day and night m his temple. (Rev. 7 : 15). Is not 
that endlessly either? Perhaps he thinks that applies 
to time also! How is it, brother? Strange that this 
passage must be understood so literal, while the rest 
of the Bible, and especially the book of Revelations, 
is little else than a figure ! How the Bible changes to 
suit my brother's convenience ! 

He introduced Heb. 12 : 5-11 to prove that punish- 
ment is nothing but parental correction. Now let me 
read a verse or two there : " Now no chastening for the 
present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; neverthe- 
less, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of right- 



430 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

eousness unto them which are exercised thereby" Now 
it appears there are some that are not "exercised there- 
by" — it does them no good — they refuse to be benefit- 
ted by it. Will he tell us how it will be with them? 
He seems to think it is going to succeed with every 
one ; but Paul does not speak that way. Now how 
will it be with those with whom it does not succeed ? 
Besides it is not the word kolasis that is here used, but 
the word paidai, which does signify parental correc- 
tion. 

He thinks that future endless punishment will de- 
stroy the happiness of the righteous in heaven. He 
thinks we will be there just as we are litre. As if we 
could reason from our circumstances and feelings here 
as to what will be our circumstances and feelings there! 
But I answer him by asking, Is God happy now? Are 
the saints happy now f And all this notwithstanding 
the sin and suffering with which the world abounds ? 
If they are, then the existence of sin and suffering, how- 
ever dreadful to those who endure it, will not be in the 
way of the happiness of holy beings in the future world, 
as it is not in the way of their happiness now, if, as he 
says, we are to be the same there as here. 

He tells us that universal salvation was the rule in the 
O. T. But how will he prove this ? He quoted what 
several commentators say about the law of Moses ; but 
this is a very small fraction of the O. T. It is not true 
that these authors teach the absence of the doctrine of 
endless punishment in the O.T. On the contrary, ev- 
ery one of them interpret certain O. T. passages as 
teaching the doctrine. Even Dr. George Campbell, 
whose language seems strongest, does this. I do hope 
Bro. Hughes will be done misrepresenting these authors 
on fhis point. The O. T. does in many places teach the 
doctrine of endless punishment, as we have proved ; and 
the Jews believed it. Besides even the law of Moses, 
as is evidenced by the very passages quoted by my op- 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 431 

ponent from the commentators, is as silent about future 
life and happiness, as concerning future punishment. 
Hence Moses comes quite as near teaching universal de- 
struction, or damnation, as he does salvation. But again, 
my opponent himself admits future punishment, hence 
his positions on the O. T. are against his own teachings. 
Has he no care for consistency ? 

He insists that Eevelations was written before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, though I have proven 
by the very highest authorities that the book could not 
have been written for a quarter of a century afterward. 
But he says the two witnesses were to prophecy 1260 
days in the city. There is no evidence for this. Let us 
see. Writers on Prophecy generally concede that a day 
in prophetic symbol represents a year or an epoch ; 
then Revelations must have been written, according to 
my opponent's learned exegesis, 1260 years before A. D. 
70 — before Solomon's day. 

My opponent again makes a tremendous ado about 
Paul's being everlastingly tormented for his kinsmen's 
sake. Here again he does not state me fairly. I said 
that whether the cutting off was simply from the con- 
gregation, the earth, or from heaven, it would have been 
without hope of restoration. The anathema did not ad- 
mit of restoration. But why does Bro. Hughes make 
such an ado over Paul's affection for his kinsmen ? Has 
he not several times intimated that if his friends had to 
go to hell, he would go there too ? Has he forgotten 
the eulogy he passed upon the old Pagan, Eadbod, for 
making that declaration ? Did not Mr. King blatantly 
make such statements in the Des Moines debate ? In 
short, have not Universalists been accustomed to make 
such protestations f Are they so much bolder and more 
devoted to their friends than the old apostle was almost 
inclined to be ? Truly the legs of the lame are unequal ; 
hence this limping. 

He introduces " the word spoken by angels.'' (Heb. 



432 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

2 : 2, 3). From this he argues that the O. T. does not 
teach endless punishment. By comparing this with 
Acts '7 : 38, 53, and Gal. 3 : 19, he will see that it is only 
the law of Moses to which allusion is here made, and by 
comparing it with Heb. 10 : 29, he will learn of a pun- 
ishment " more sore than death without mercy ." 

RECAPITULATION. 

I have now only time to briefly sum up the argu- 
ments offered upon the proposition before us, viz., 
"Those who die in willful disobedience to the gospel 
will suffer endless punishment." 

After defining the terms of our proposition, we set 
out by showing, in our first argument, that the strong- 
est terms of duration in the English language, terms 
which express infinite duration, are applied in the Scrip- 
tures to future punishment. That while the word "end- 
less " is not applied in the Scriptures to the punishment 
of the wicked, yet other stronger English words are, as 
eternal, everlasting, ever, forever, forever and ever. We 
proved the infinite meaning of these words by acknowl- 
edged and standard authorities, but acknowledged, of 
course, that they are sometimes used in a hyperbolic 
sense. So that we have demonstrated that the strongest 
English words, expressive of infinite duration, are pre- 
fixed in the Scriptures to the future punishment of the 
wicked. 

In the same way, we also showed that the strongest 
terms and phrases of duration in the original Hebrew 
and Greek tongues are also applied to the punishment 
of the wicked. 

But we are cited to 2 Peter 1 : 11, on eis ton aionion, 
to prove that this form of expression does not necessa- 
rily mean endless ; for, says my opponent, Christ is to 
give up his kingdom ; and Bro. Campbell is quoted 
here, as well as 1 Cor. 15th chapter. True Christ is to 







MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 433 

give up his kingdom. But which kingdom, or mani- 
festation of his kingdom ? The mediatorial (priestly) 
set up on Pentecost, or the " everlasting kingdom " of 
which Peter speaks, and which is reserved tor the right- 
eous ? Certainly it is the former that is to be given up, 
and this, too, immediately after the resurrection and 
judgment, at which time the saints enter upon the " ev- 
erlasting " (eis ton aionion). This kingdom will be as 
enduring as the life of the righteous, or the throne of 
God. So Bro. Hughes is signally defeated here, too. 

But he quotes what Dr. Lewis says concerning the in- 
creased conception, intensity, or emphasis, made by the 
uses gf duplicates and plurals, and asks if we can add 
to the expression of eternity. Well, judging by the 
force and prolongation he sometimes places upon the 
word, he evidently thinks he can increase our concep- 
tion of it by his emphasis. This Tayler Lewis says is 
done by duplicates and plurals. But we have before 
shown that the Saviour and the apostles use these repe- 
titions, duplicates, etc., where it is certain that the state- 
ment would have been as true, though not so impress- 
ive, in the simple form, as in the expression " verily, 
verily/' " no, no," etc. 

Upon the simple form of aion I showed from the 
highest authorities that it etymologically means ever-be- 
ing, and that Dr. Beecher, following Olympiadorius, of 
the sixth century, is contradicted by the Greek scholar- 
ship of the world, from Aristotle to the present time. I 
have freely admitted, however, that the word is often 
used in an accommodated and hyperbolic sense. That 
in very many instances it means a limited space of time. 
But it always exhausts the period in the mind of the 
speaker. As different men have different horizons, be- 
cause of the difference in their visions, so this word's 
extension is measured by the conception of the one 
using it. Man's eternity means more to me than it does 
to a destructionist, while the age of the hills is less to 
28 



434 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

me than to him who believes that matter is eternal. But 
whatever a Greek's conception of eternity might be, he 
expressed it by axon. The adjective aidnios, is less 
variable in meaning, and in the N. T. always means 
endless. 

But aidnios, or even axon exhausted the conception of 
the speaker, who could find no stronger terms if he had 
desired them. 

This reminds me of his criticism on Jude 7, which I 
think I have neglected to notice. He says the language 
there used respecting Sodom and Gomorrah refers to 
the past. But I have examined some eight or ten ver- 
sions and commentators, and these all put it in the 
present, as the common version does. Jude says "they 
are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of 
eternal lire." When I pressed my opponent for a 
stronger Greek word than aidnios, he gave us aidios, de- 
rived by the way from the same noun, axon, that aidnios 
is. But that is just the word that Jude applies to future 
punishment. 

I showed from Bishop Home that these, like other 
words, are to be taken in their current and received 
meaning, which is not always their etymological mean- 
ing, unless there are weighty reasons why some other 
meaning should be accepted. That we are to take the 
most simple sense that most readily suggests itself to an 
attentive reader, of competent knowledge, as the true 
sense. And I showed that, taken in this way, these 
words, as applied to the punishment of the wicked, 
must be understood in their unlimited sense. 

I also took up my friend's chosen witness, Dr. Ed- 
ward Beecher, and showed that even Dr. Beecher would 
not support him ; that while Dr. Beecher does not agree 
with Aristotle's derivation of axon, he yet admits that 
aidn does include the idea of duration, and may mean 
endless, nor does he deny the Scriptural view of the 
endlessness of future punishment. 



ME. CARPENTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 435 

I also introduced here two or three specifications. 
First, I introduced 2 Thes. 1 : 4-10 ; Matt. 25 : 46, bal- 
ancing the duration of the righteous against the miser}' 
of the wicked. I showed from these passages that "the 
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his 
mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on 
them that know not God and obey not the gospel of 
our Lord Jesus Christ ; " that they will be punished 
with "everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord and the glory of his power." And I showed by 
several passages of the same kind, where we have the 
preposition preceding the noun or the adjective used 
in its compound or duplicated form, concerning which 
we have spoken before, and in which form these terms 
always signify endless duration. We have the words 
thus used and applied to the punishment of the wicked. 

I also specified Dan. 12 : 1-4, in which passage it is 
said that " many of them that sleep in the dust of the 
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
shame and everlasting contempt." And I showed that 
while " dust " and " earth " may be used figuratively, 
the expression " dust of the earth " or " dust of the 
ground " is no where used in a figurative sense in that 
connection in the Scriptures. And I asked him to find 
me a single passage where the " dust of the earth," or 
" dust of the ground " is not used in a literal sense, in 
all its Bible usage. Hence, I claim that while that is 
true, it refers in Dan. 12 : 1-4 to a literal resurrection. 
Hence after the resurrection some shall go into " ever- 
lasting shame and contempt." I supported that by a 
long line of arguments and proofs which I think were 
conclusive, and which the attempted criticisms of the 
brother have not set aside. 

Then I introduced my second argument, in which I 
proved that Christ will deliver up the Mediatorial 
Throne, after which salvation will be impossible. Un- 
der this argument I showed by suitable Scriptural proofs 



436 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

•that where the gospel is preached, salvation is attainable 
only through Christ as a Mediator and Priest; that the 
time is coming when he will cease to act as such, and 
that at that time there will be those yet unsaved. I also 
showed that salvation is only through Christ's blood, 
that the end of Christ's mediatorial reign is after the res- 
urrection, and that those remaining unsaved after that 
time will have no other means of salvation. This point 
the brother has tried to meet, but he has failed to show 
that there are any means of salvation furnished to men 
in the future world. Then I presented an elaborate ar- 
gument in continuance of my first argument on the 
original words in the Greek and Hebrew, and showed by 
various instances and authorities that these words as ap- 
plied to future punishment are to be taken in their infi- 
nite and absolute sense. 

In my third argument I showed that there will be 
an anathema pronounced upon certain men when Christ 
comes. Here I showed that this anathema meant a cut- 
ting off. It was an irrevocable judgment that could not 
be set aside, and involved the idea of endless punish- 
ment. 

After this, as our fourth argument, we introduced the 
doctrine of the Unpardonable Sin. We showed here 
by Scripture proofs that there is a sin that " never hath 
forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in that which is 
to come," or if you please, neither in the Jewish nor 
Christian ages, which latter embraces all time to come. 
And we showed that some were placed in a condition in 
which it tl is impossible to renew them to repentance." 
And from 1 John 5 : 16, we showed that there is " a sin 
unto death," a sin for which we need "not pray," for it 
hath no pardon. Perhaps you noticed how lightly the 
brother touched on these several arguments, which so 
conclusively support the doctrine set forth in our prop- 
osition. 

Yesterday he sweat over them wonderfully, not by 



MR. carpenter's CLOSING SPEECH. 437 

the sun's shining, as he says, for the moderators were 
going to the stove to warm ; but to-day he took them as 
if they were not worthy of his notice. I expect he 
thought that was the easiest way to meet them. To us, 
at least, he seemed "cool " enough. 

You noticed he had a good deal to say about hades 
and tartarus, and gehenna, and I do not know how many 
other things ; but he had very little to say on these ar- 
guments that I have introduced in support of this prop- 
osition. He loves to show his familiarity with authors 
whether their words bear upon the proposition or not. 

My fifth argument was upon the Great Salvation and 
the More Sore Punishment. Here I showed that tem- 
poral death was the penalty for transgressing Moses's 
law; that the " more sore punishment" consists in the 
" second death." This argument, I believe, was not 
noticed at all by the brother. We should like to find 
out what that punishment is. I am sorry that he has 
not seen fit to tell us. 

My sixth argument was on the Rich Man and Lazarus. 
The brother does not agree with Bro. Snook as to the 
"five brethren." Snook thinks they represent the five 
Jewish sects. Bro. Hughes thinks they are only put in 
to fill out the parable, and that the Rich Man refers to 
the Scribes and Pharisees, and the " five brethren " rep- 
resent the rest of the Jews ; but he failed to show any 
aptness of the passage to the thing to be taught by the 
Saviour, as interpreted under this modern view. Well, 
he thinks he can settle that matter with Bro. Snook. 
But he cannot follow Bro. Snook very certainly, so he 
will have to convince him. But surely he has left my 
argument untouched — the unfathomable gulf unbridged, 
and there it stands, indicating a final and eternal sepa- 
ration between the righteous and the wicked in the future 
world. You will^not forget, too, that the Rich Man's 
prayer was not answered ; that the whole question was 



438 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

referred back to Moses and the prophets in this world ; 
the next is too late ! 

In this connection I introduced the original words 
hades, sheol, and gehenna, and showed how they were 
used and understood among the Jews, and that this last 
word at the time of Christ was applied to future and 
eternal punishment. This he has tried to set aside by 
an argument denying that this term was used in this 
sense until after the time of Christ, but I think you 
will agree that he has failed to make his point here ; and 
I am sure that the arguments I have adduced will be 
sufficient to satisfy you of the contrary. 

My seventh argument was on the Destruction of the 
Soul, showing that the destruction of the body is one 
thing, and that of the soul another thing ; that the de- 
struction of the soul is to be after the destruction of the 
body. And that the body and soul are to be cast into 
hell, and that destruction does not mean annihilation as 
he would have us believe. And we showed that the 
Jews understood by hell here, or gehenna, the place of fu- 
ture endless punishment. And that gehenna could not be 
either in this world or in hades, because the soul or 
spirit could not be cast into the valley of Hinnom in 
this world, nor could the body be cast into hades in the 
next, for the body and soul are separated at death. But 
they will be re-united at the resurrection and then cast 
into gehenna. This argument the brother attempted to 
meet by denying the use of gehenna, in the sense of the 
place of future punishment, until it was so used in the 
Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, which he dated in the 
third or fourth century after Christ. But I introduced 
authorities to show that some of these Targums date 
back, probably to the time of Ezra, certainly to the 
time of the Maccabees, which was before Christ. 

My eighth argument was on the General Scope of the 
Scriptures, showing that they were in j^armony with the 
theory of man's present probation and ultimate change- 



439 

less destiny. I showed here that there is a God and a 
Devil ; good ange.ls and bad angels ; good men and bad 
men ; death and life ; and also heaven and hell. And 
we showed that there will be sheep and goats at the 
judgment, that some shall be there acquitted and others 
condemned. Then we gave you a number of passages 
of Scripture illustrating this point, which all stand un- 
refuted in my brother's replies, as the report will show. 
I think he will find that he has not set aside one of my 
principal arguments, and that he has not taken one of 
them from me. 

My ninth argument was on Scriptural Antithesis, and 
I showed here that there was a balancing of one thing 
against another, as things are balanced in the opposite 
arms of a pair of scales. And I showed that for this 
balancing, the two arms must be in equipoise — the one 
thing must be equal to the other thing — the one arm of 
the scale must exactly poise the other arm of the scale. 
And I quoted from Skinner, in his debate with Camp- 
bell, that he had not opposed or denied the doctrine of 
antithesis. Then I introduced a number of passages in 
which these Scriptural antithesis occur, where we find 
such opposites as " save — perish : " " eternal life — per- 
ish;" "tribulation and anguish — glory, honor, immor- 
tality, eternal life ; " "death — eternal life," etc. "These 
shall go away into everlasting punishmejit, but the right- 
eous into life eternal." To this he only opposed an ef- 
fort which showed how anxious he was to evade the real 
point involved in the argument 1 have here presented. 

My tenth argument was tn the Death Penalty, and 
the Nature of Law and Pardon. I defined law as "a rule 
of action," quoting the definition given of it by Sir Wm. 
Blackstone. Then I showed that the violation of law 
is sin; that man has been prohibited from violating the 
law, and that the penalty attached by the law to viola- 
tion is death. I said that it makes no difference whether 
the penalty was understood to be temporal or spiritual 



440 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

death, as either implied separation from God. I showed 
that the promise was not added till after the fall ; that 
the promise of salvation was only through pardon, se- 
cured through the blood of Christ, and that this pardon 
comes by grace. I showed that man could* not relieve 
himself from sin and suffering by either obedience or 
suffering ; that suffering can never do away sin ; that 
man cannot pay his debt, and if the payment depends 
upon him, he must suffer endlessly. That sin must be 
remitted, cancelled, forgiven, or man could not be saved. 
And I objected to my brother's doctrine that it had no 
grace in it, that it was opposed to the whole idea of par- 
don, and that Universalists teach that man must pay 
the whole penalty himself. And I showed that they re- 
ject the atonement of Christ, by references to Cobb, 
King, and Thayer. And you know that I have failed 
in this discussion to get the brother to definitely commit 
himself on the question of pardon, as to whether it is 
prospective or retrospective, in the sense of freeing from 
the penalty that otherwise would be endured on account 
of past transgressions, and in what sense, if any, he 
holds to the doctrine of the atonement. And to all this 
argument he has given no satisfactory answer as yet. 

My eleventh argument was on the Condition of the 
Fallen Angels, for whom no redemption has been pro- 
vided, so far as known, which renders it presumptive 
that men who are kindred in actions, shall have no fu- 
ture redemption. He tried to evade the force of this ar- 
gument ; but he did not succeed. I wanted to know 
how he would get those angels out, as they were bound 
in " everlasting [aidios] chains ; " and he said " I [John 
Hughes] do not think there were any angels there. I 
think they were no other than men." This argument I 
could not answer ! He claimed that the sin of which 
they were guilty was fornication, etc. ! But the com- 
parison was not as to their sins, but as to their punish- 
ment And the Scriptures say definitely they were an- 



MR. CARPENTER'S CLOSING SPEECH. 441 

gels. And these angels "are reserved unto the day of 
judgment to be punished." That argument he has not 
met, and cannot. 

Our twelfth argument related to the Difference in the 
Resurrection and Judgment. This you have just heard ; 
it need not be re-stated. But we have showed that there 
will be a resurrection and a general judgment; that 
the judgment will be after death, and that at the judg- 
ment there will be a difference in the characters and des- 
tiny of the judged. The one does go to the right, the 
other to the left — the one are described as sheep, the 
other as goats — to the one is said, " Come ye blessed ; " 
to the other, " Depart ye cursed." 

These arguments, I believe, have commended them- 
selves to your sober judgment, and fully sustain the 
proposition I have attempted to prove. 

My brother has run a line of objections amounting 
to about this, that he did not believe in my doctrine ; 
that it was contrary to reason ; that it was contrary to 
the Bible. But has he proved it ? That is the ques- 
tion. 

And now before I close, I wish to appeal to the bet- 
ter judgment of this intelligent audience, who have 
given us such a respectful hearing during this discus- 
sion. Dear friends, according to the theory both of 
the brother and myself, you are to exist eternally. Ac- 
cording to both of our theories the happiness of that 
eternity will be more or less effected by your actions 
here — you will not forget the endless one hundred de- 
grees of difference between A and B in our illustra- 
tion. This earthly probation at most is but short, and 
may close at an unexpected moment. The future — ah! 
that illimitable, awfully grand eternity, freighted with 
all its joys or miseries, is yet untried. I ask, then, will 
you risk your eternal destiny upon an uncertainty ? 
Will you risk the chances of a turning to Christ in the 
other world ? Will you sport upon the brink of eter- 



442 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

nity during life, listening to the siren song, "God is too 
good to cast you off forever ? " At best my brother's 
theory is but an abstraction, a speculation, that cannot 
possibly benefit you in time nor in eternity. Be careful 
that it does not lure you down to ruin ! Will you risk 
your eternal all upon it ? If you believe upon the Lord 
Jesus Christ, obey his gospel in its fulness, and live and 
die in his favor here, you know your future will be se- 
cure. Death-bed repentances are not to be relied on, 
and my brother's after-death repentance is wholly un- 
known in God's word. I ask then, again, are you will- 
ing, with all these facts before you, with eternity at 
hand, in face of the fact that you must come out of 
your graves and meet an assembled universe at the 
judgment seat, to risk receiving the dread decision 
there, " Depart, depart" — take your portion with 
" the devil and his angels ! " I say, are you willing to 
risk being found out of Christ at that day ? God has 
endowed you with reason, has surrounded you in this 
world with golden opportunities, and you have heard 
from my opponent the very best that an adroit and ex- 
perienced debater can say in favor of his theory. Are 
you willing to risk it ? May God help you to act wisely 
on this momentous issue ! 

In conclusion, a word to my courteous brother. In 
view of all these dread considerations, will you, in the 
last speech of this four days' discussion, presume, as in 
your last speech, to get up here and attempt to turn all 
these things into ridicule ? Dare you presume to di- 
vert the minds of this dying, eternity-bound audience 
from these sober realities, by any subtlety of rhetoric or 
elocution ? Ah ! can you, in view of your dread re- 
sponsibility, as an influential teacher and leader of the 
people, continue to feed your friends on the opiates — the 
lullabies "All is well, God will save you, he cannot cast 
you off forever, if you do not turn to him in this life 
you may in the next, or by some means he will save you 



443 

anyhow?" You and I must meet this people at the 
judgment; fearful responsibilities hang over us! Will 
you not, then, join me in warning them to flee from 
the wrath to come ; to secure their souPs salvation 
through the blood of the Redeemer, by a hearty obedi- 
ence to the gospel in all its requirements ? Let us do 
this, and then, in any event, it will be well for us and 
well for them. May God help us so to do. [Time ex- 
pired.] 

ME. HUGHES' CLOSING EEJOINDER. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — I propose first to ex- 
amine briefly some things said in the brother's last 
speech. He brings up the resurrection of the body 
once more. He quotes again Rom. 8:11, " But if the 
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell 
in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth 
in you." You will remember I have said something 
about that before, but he has not noticed what I said. 
He thinks I have not given attention to some things he 
has said. Perhaps not ; but he has not noticed a great 
many things that I have introduced. However, I have 
meant to pay due attention to everything introduced by 
him that had any vital connection with the question in 
debate, besides spending considerable time on things 
but remotely connected with the proposition under dis- 
cussion. 

Now in reference to Rom. 8 : 11,1 said that the quick- 
ening of our mortal bodies depended on our having the 
Spirit of Christ, it could not, therefore, mean the bring- 
ing of the body up out of the grave. If the Spirit of 
Christ be in us there is a dying to sin, a quickening of 
the body, a yielding up of the members of the body as 
instruments of righteousness unto God. (Rom. 6.19; 
12 : 1) ; so that we do not live " after the flesh/' but 



444 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

61 after the Spirit." That if the Spirit of God is in you 
the body is dead unto sin, and quickened unto active 
righteousness. Rom. 8 : 20. There is not a word about 
the resurrection of the body literally from the grave in 
the whole passage. 

Now it does not make any difference what he says 
about the resurrection of the dead ; I believe in the res- 
urrection from the dead as much as he does. But does 
the resurrection of the dead mean a literal resurrection 
of the bodies of the dead into the future life ? That is 
the question. And I quoted Paul, that the body that 
is sown is " not that body that shall be /" That is 
what Paul says about it, and my friend here accepts 
Paul! 

He believes all the apostle says about the " building 
of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens ; " and he says, that does not contradict the 
resurrection of the literal body. But Paul contrasts 
that " building" with the "tabernacle " we have here, 
and makes it the resurrection body, " our house from 
heaven " with which we are to be clothed upon. Not a 
house coming from the grave, but from heaven. And 
he says we have it immediately consequent upon death ; 
not that we shall have 1 it ; but we have it, in the dissolv- 
ing of the earthly house or tabernacle. The resurrec- 
tion body, then, is a " spiritual " body, not the earthly 
body revivified. 

Then he quotes Jairus's daughter, the young man at 
Nain, Lazarus, etc., to prove the resurrection of the 
body. Did the parties mentioned die again ? Or did 
they go directly into the immortal state ? How was 
that ? If they died again these cases will not help him 
to prove his doctrine of the resurrection of the body in- 
to the immortal state. But they were not raised into 
the final state, but simply back to this life again. But 
Christ's body was raised from the grave. His resurrec- 
tion was to demonstrate that he was the Son of God with 



445 

power, to give assurance of a future life, and his body 
was raised to demonstrate to men in the flesh the fact 
of the resurrection. But that body he did not take to 
heaven with him ; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the 
kingdom of God." And so his body was changed at 
the moment of his ascension. Now Alexander Camp- 
bell says in reference to the body of Christ : " That 
body [Christ's] was not changed till, like the living saints 
who shall be on the earth at his second personal coming, 
it was made spiritual, incorruptible, and glorious at the 
instant of his ascension." Christian System, page 168. 

The Saviour says that the " dead are raised ; " not 
that their bodies are to be raised out of the grave ; but 
that in the resurrection they are to be clothed upon with 
new, spiritual, heavenly, and glorious bodies, to put on 
immortality and incorruptibility, a constitution that is 
to die no more. This work is going forward now, but 
there is to be a consummation and completion of the 
work of the resurrection, when " all shall be made alive 
in Christ," and shall be constituted holy and happy for- 
ever. 

But what follows if the brother cannot prove the res- 
urrection of the physical body ? Why then he fails to 
prove his doctrine of a future general judgment and of 
his eternal hell, because the body is concerned in all 
that. He contends so earnestly on this question because 
it is a vital question with him. His whole system falls 
with his theory of the resurrection of the natural body. 

He says the judgment is to be after the resurrection. 
How did he prove it ? Why, he took a passage in Rev- 
elations, and one in Matthew — one here and another 
there, made a curious mixture of them both, and then 
as the result, tried to prove his doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion and the judgment. 

He quoted in proof of his position Matt. 16 : 27, 
" For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his 
Father with his angels, and he shall reward every man 



446 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

according to his works." But then he failed to read the 
next verse, " Verily I say unto you, There be some 
standing here which shall not taste of death till they see 
the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Now why 
did he stop where he did ? Why did he fail to read the 
28th verse ? Manifestly, as you can see, it would have 
completely overturned his argument he was trying to 
make on the 27th verse. Whether that was just fair I 
will leave you to judge. 

He also quoted Rev. 20 :10-15, about the devil being 
cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, etc. " And the 
dead, small and great, standing before God, and the 
books being opened, and the dead being judged out of 
the things written in the books, according to their 
works." Now I have said a good deal about that pas- 
sage here already. I have shown that it was a highly 
figurative description of the setting up of the mediato- 
rial throne, the throne of his kingdom in which Christ 
was to judge the quick and the dead, connected with his 
"coming in the clouds of heaven," which was to take 
place within the generation in which he lived, as pre- 
dicted in Dan. 7 : 9-14 ; Matt. 24 : 29-34. 

Well, he speaks of the " everlasting (aidios) chains," 
and wants to know of what use will be the chains after 
the angels are liberated from them. Now does he say 
that they will be liberated from their chains ? Does he 
admit that? It says, "He hath reserved in everlasting 
chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great 
day." This puts a limit to the time of their being 
chained ; they are then chained no longer. I under- 
stand aidios here to refer to the purposes of God, and 
not to literal chains ; and so the chains are eternal be- 
cause God's purposes are eternal. The only remaining 
instance in which we find the word aidios is Rom. 1 : 
20, where it is applied to God, " For the invisible 
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly 



CLOSING REJOINDER. 447 

seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead." 

But about the sin of these " angels " again. He did 
not meet that. The word angel literally means mes- 
senger ; and these angels spoken of here must be men in 
this world. Their sin described in Jude is one that 
spiritual beings cannot commit. Perhaps they were the 
u sons of God," who " took wives of the daughters of 
men/' from whence sprang the progeny of " giants in 
those days," and from whose union was bred the cor- 
ruption and terrible wickedness that caused " the judg- 
ment " of the flood that destroyed them from the face 
of the earth. They were reserved under chains of dark- 
ness (judicial blindness) unto the Flood, a judgment of 
a great day. Gen. 6 : 1-7. But at any rate the judg- 
ment of these angels does not prove his doctrine of a 
general judgment after the resurrection of all men from 
the dead. 

Bro. Carpenter refers again to the -final state of man. 
Now I showed that in the resurrection state all men 
would be in a state of glory, immortality, and incor- 
ruptibility. Did I fail to prove that on my first propo- 
sition ? I think not. But he says a man may fall in the 
future state ; they may lose their inheritance there, as 
they sometimes fall here ; angels fell there ; and even if 
the angels mentioned in Jude were saved, they may af- 
terwards fall, and after all might not be saved endlessly! 
That is all true on his theory; but I have already shown 
you that it is not true on my theory. For when all are 
reconciled, and gathered into one in Christ, are constitu- 
ted immortal and incorruptible, there will be no danger 
of their falling. 

But he says the angels were once on probation. How 
does he know that ? Where is the Scripture that says 
they were on probation ? He knows a great deal about 
the angels; but he does not know anything about the 
heathen ! I wonder if the angels are in the proposition ? 



448 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

That reminds me of the heathen once more, whom he 
calls my clients. He speaks slightingly of the old Pa- 
gan that would rather go to hell with his forefathers 
than go to heaven with the Christian priests. That is 
certainly no worse than his thought of Paul, the Chris- 
tian apostle, being willing to be endlessly damned for 
the sake of his brethren. That old Pagan refused to be 
baptized, and preferred going to hell where he would 
meet his forefathers, than to go to heaven, and be sepa- 
rated from them. There was something noble in that 
old Pagan then. But that very thing saps the founda- 
tion of the brother's argument on endless punishment. 
A doctrine that outrages the moral sensibilities of even 
an old heathen cannot be true ! 

But he objects to McKnight's rendering of Jude 7, 
" Having undergone the punishment of an eternal fire," 
and says it is the present participle, " suffering the ven- 
geance of an eternal fire," conveying the idea that they 
are still suffering the vengeance of the eternal fire. 
Well, that " suffering " of theirs is " set forth for an ex- 
ample" Will he contend that they are continually suf- 
fering the vengeance of the fire, so that they may be an 
example f But how is the burning of men in the fu- 
ture world u set forth" to men in this world? How is 
the suffering of men in fire in the future world an exam- 
ple to men in this world? The fire alluded to is the 
fire that turned Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, and 
the burning of these cities is an example to men in this 
world ; and that is the reason why McKnight makes 
that rendering of that passage. 

But he says in reference to Dan. 12 : 2, that the phrase 
" dust of the earth ' is always used literally, and so it 
means a literal resurrection. But you will remember 
that this resurrection in Dan. 12:2 was to be at "a time 
of trouble, such as there never was since there was a 
nation, even to that same time ; " and that Christ quotes 
this prophecy and applies it to the destruction of Jerusa- 



CLOSING REJOINDER. 449 

lem, saying, " Then shall be great tribulation, such as 
was not since the beginning of the world to this time, 
no, nor ever shall be." So that the passage does not re- 
fer to the resurrection, Christ being judge; and the phrase 
"dust of the earth" is certainly figurative in that pas- 
sage if in no other. Why did the brother never even 
make an attempt to meet what I have said on that ? 

My brother accuses me of " terrible perversions " of 
Campbell, and says that Barnes, McKnight, and oth- 
ers, fare little better in my hands. The manner in 
which he makes this charge would intimate that I have 
done this willfully, knowingly. I brand the charge as 
infamous ; I challenge the attempt to show where I 
have scrapped, misquoted, misconstrued, or perverted 
a single author I have quoted. What has he been do- 
ing ? Has he not all along through this discussion 
been quoting Universalist authors on points where he 
thought they made concessions unfavorable to my posi- 
tion ? But have I complained, or accused him of scrap- 
ping them ? The authority of these great men on the 
points I have quoted from them, are clearly against 
him, though they agree with him on the general issue ; 
and that is the reason it hurts him so prodigiously. If 
I have misrepresented them it is because their own 
words misrepresent them. They were quoted fully and 
fairly. That these men believed in endless misery, 
makes their testimony all the more weighty on the 
points quoted on. If there is anything inconsistent in 
the teachings of these authors I am not responsible for 
it. Suffice it to say, that their testimony on the point 
of my understanding of the meaning and usage of the 
words aion and aionios is conclusive. 

That Matt. 12 : 31, 32; Mark 3 : 28, 29, are Hebra- 
isms, I have the authority of Grotius. He says of 
verse 31, " This form of speech is a common Hebra- 
ism ; the Jews often said, this shall be, an^ that shall 
not be; not intending, however to affirm absolutely 
A J 



450 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

that the first should be, but merely to show that the 
last was much more unlikely or difficult than the 
first." 

To make these passages positive declarations of what 
shall be, and what shall not be, is to make them assert 
the unconditional forgiveness of " all sins and blas- 
phemies ; " for the time in which the one is not to be 
forgiven is limited to the present and coming age. But 
Bro. Carpenter says it would be only the forgiveness 
of all kind of sins." Let him read Mark 3 : 28, and 
he will see differently : " Verily I say unto you, All 
sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blas- 
phemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme." 

But he asserts that the " age to come " is used gener- 
ically to embrace the whole Christian dispensation, 
though he admits that it has minor divisions. On the 
contrary, it here means the age of "blindness" to the 
Jewish people, the period in which their " house was to 
be desolate," which was to end when the " fullness of 
the Gentiles came in." When it is asserted that a par- 
ticular sin shall not be forgiven in the then present and 
the coming age, is it not an assertion by implication 
that it shall be forgiven in a succeeding age ? 

He says that I sweat over some of his arguments. I 
am sure that it was not his arguments that made me 
sweat, but the sun coming in at the window here. I 
have never see,n anything so very hot in his arguments 
yet, although he is talking a good deal about a very hot 
place. 

Now I will briefly notice the review of his argu- 
ments presented here on this proposition which reads 
as follows : "The Scriptures teach that those who die 
in willful disobedience to the gospel will suffer endless 
punishment." 

He said the proposition was concerning a certain 
specified class, and that he would confine it to them. 
But I pressed him to speak to the question of the sal- 



451 

vation of the heathen, who comprise a vast majority 
of the human family, because I wanted to test his prin- 
ciples and theory by that question. And I think that 
by their case I have involved him in an absurdity, turn 
whichever way he will. Well, finally, he said the hea- 
then were a law unto themselves, and had the law 
written in their hearts, and if they lived . up to the 
light they had they would be saved. But I showed 
that the light they had could not save them. That by 
that law every soul of them is condemned. " All have 
sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Eom. 3 : 
23. I showed that they die unsaved, and that if he 
denied salvation to them in the future world, then his 
theory consigns them to eternal punishment, because 
they have not believed in a gospel they have never 
heard. But that if he allows them all to be saved un- 
conditionally in the future world, then to preach the 
gospel to them here, would be a curse to them, a means 
of damning a great majority of them, and so making 
the gospel a gospel of damnation, rather than a gospel 
of life and salvation. Besides, also, by that he vio- 
lates his rule of conditional salvation, at lea^t makes 
many millions more exceptions to it, than applications 
of it. But if he opens the door of salvation to them 
in the future world, then he abandons the idea of death 
fixing the condition of man to all eternity ; and so he 
can predicate nothing on man's condition at death. 

I called attention to the fact that his propositiondoes 
not teach the endless punishment of those who live in 
disobedience to the gospel, but those who die in willful 
disobedience to the gospel are to suffer endless punish- 
ment. So that a man might live in disobedience to 
the gospel all his life, down to the very last moment, 
if he then repents and dies right, he will be saved. But 
if he should live a Christian all his life, and then hap- 
pen to die in disobedience, he would lose all reward, 
and be eternally lost. I showed that thus the proposi- 



452 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

tion ignores the Bible doctrine of judging and reward- 
ing men according to their works. It is therefore an 
unreasonable and unscriptural proposition, and cannot 
be true. 

I called attention to the fact, also, that there is no 
passage of Scripture that says men are to suffer endless 
punishment, because they die in willful disobedience 
to the gospel. 

Then he wanted to confine the discussion to the du- 
ration of punishment, as indicated by the word " end- 
less " in the proposition. He said that is the " pivot- 
al" word in the proposition. Well, I accepted his piv- 
otal word, but he has failed to find a word applied to 
punishment in the Bible that means endless as its 
ordinary or first meaning, and so has failed in his ar- 
gument altogether. 

But in his line of argument he says that " eternal," 
" everlasting," etc., are the strongest words of duration 
in the English language ; and that they are applied to 
punishment. But he is not to found an argument on 
the common usage of these words ; the question turns 
on the Biblical usage of these words, which is quite 
different from the common usage. 

Then he brought up the original words aion, aionios. 
But he failed to show that the primary meaning of 
these words is eternity and eternal. I gave you the 
definitions of Pickering, Donnegan, Liddell & Scott, 
Schrevelius, Schleusner, Dr. Beecher, Prof. Lewis, and 
many other standard authorities, to show that the words 
aion, aionios, do not carry the force of eternal duration 
in themselves. I also gave you at length the usage of 
these words in the Old and New Testaments, showing 
that they were in a multitude of instances applied to 
things that were known to be of limited duration, and 
where they could not be understood as meaning end- 
less duration. I thus showed conclusively that he 
could prove nothing as to the eternity of punishment 



ME. HUGHES' CLOSING REJOINDER. 453 

by the use of these original words ; and to prove that 
punishment is absolutely endless, he must do it by 
something else than by the use of these original words 
on which he relied. And he has failed to show by his 
authorities that these words mean in their primary 
sense eternal, or eternity ; according to his own show- 
ing from them, these words do not prove endless pun- 
ishment in the places referred to in his argument. He 
failed also to show that there was anything in the na- 
ture of punishment to necessitate the meaning of end- 
less when applied to it. My brother claims that axon 
and aionios may, and sometimes do mean endless, and 
that they may mean endless when applied to punish- 
ment. How tame ! What a monstrous falling off! 
But he must show not that they may, but that they do 
and must mean endless when so applied. 

But why do I understand aionios in a limited sense 
when applied to punishment in Matt. 25 : 41, " These 
shall go away into everlasting punishment?" {eis kola- 
sin aionion.) 

I answer because eternity is not the primary mean- 
ing of the word aion, the noun from which the adjec- 
tive aionios is derived, either in its etymology, its 
usage, or lexicographical definition as given by the 
great majority of authors and lexicons. 

Because eternal is not the first or primary meaning 
of the word aionios itself, in its derivation, usage, or 
dictionary definition. 

Because it is punishment in this world, temporal 
punishment, to which in this case it is applied ; as we 
learn from the fact of its being the conclusion of a dis- 
course commenced in .the 24th chapter of Matthew, 
which discourse relates to the destruction of Jerusalem 
and attendant events, and Bro. Carpenter has failed to 
show the dividing point, where the sermon left off 
speaking of that which is now past, and commences to 
speak of that which is yet future. And we also learn 



454 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

from the fact of its fulfillment being at the coming of 
Christ, which took place within the generation in which 
he lived. 

Because there is nothing in the nature of punish- 
ment that makes it endless; and because punishment is 
reformatory in its design, and so is a reason in itself 
why it should not be endless. 

Because the word Jcolasis, here rendered punishment, 
in the New Testament means chastisement, punish- 
ment, restraint. An endless chastisement is a contradic- 
tion in terms. 

Because the Bible expressly declares that God will 
not cast oif forever ; will not contend forever; will 
not chide forever ; and will not keep anger forever. 

Because it is contrary to reason ; contrary to God's 
justice and mercy, and contrary to the purpose of God's 
government. 

I return now to his line of argument. He tried to 
show that Matt. 25th relates to the future. But I de- 
feated him on his own admission, which gave me the 
24th chapter of Matthew for the purposes of my argu- 
ment, as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem which 
is past. I showed that the 25th chapter is closely con- 
nected with the 24th, and relates to the same time. I 
showed also from other passages that the coming of 
Christ there spoken of is past; that it was to be during 
the lifetime of some then living (Matt. 16 : 27, 28) ; 
that it was to be before the generation in which he 
lived should pass away. (Matt. 24: 30-34). Thus I 
showed that the passage does not refer to judgment 
and punishment in the eternal world, but to the tem- 
poral punishment in the present world; which entirely 
defeats his argument on that passage. 

But he brings in an argument that Christ will deliv- 
er up his mediatorial throne, and then salvation will 
be impossible. Now I have introduced that passage 
in 1 Cor. 15 : 22-28 ; to prove that Christ's mediatorial 



MR. HUGHES' CLOSING REJOINDER. 455 

work will then be finished; his judgment will then be 
finished ; the work of salvation will be finished ; all 
opposing authorities, powers, and death, the last enemy, 
will be destroyed ; all men will then be reconciled to 
God, subdued to Christ, and God all in all. There 
will then be none unsaved. That meets the argument 
of the brother on that point. 

His next argument was from the anathema to be pro- 
nounced, he says when Christ comes, at the final judg- 
ment. But he cannot prove that by 1 Cor. 16 : 22 ; 
for it says nothing about a final judgment. r Nor is 
anything in the passage that determines its reference 
to a yet future coming of Christ. He tried to make 
you believe that Paul was willing to be eternally 
cursed for his brethren ; that he was willing to be 
locked up in an eternal'hell of fire, with all the vile 
and wretched of earth that they might be saved. And 
now he wants us to believe that God will pronounce 
an anathema on men in the last day. But he cannot 
prove that these anathemas mean anything more than 
temporal punishments to be endured in this life. They 
mean no more or less than a u delivering over to Satan 
for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might 
be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor. 5 : 
5; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20). I showed by Conybeare & 
Howson that the anathema maran-aiha was never used 
in the sense of Bro. Carpenter, until in later ages of 
the Church, the meaning of the terms themselves were 
lost. He referred to the Pope's anathemas. I believe 
nobody, in these days, attaches much importance to the 
curses of his Holiness. 

He next introduces what he terms the " unpardona- 
ble sin." But I showed that the " sin unto death " of 
John 5 : 16, was a sin resulting in the death of the 
body ; that these passages in Matt. 12 : 31, 32; Mark 
3 : 28, 29, are simply Hebraistic forms of speech, ex- 
pressing the greater difficulty of the forgiveness of the 



456 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

sin referred to than all other sins ; and that Heb. 6 : 4- 
6 does not assert an absolute impossibility, but an im- 
possibility humanly speaking. I showed, also, in that 
connection, that Christ said in reference to the salva- 
tion of certain rich men, that it was impossible with 
men, but with God all things are possible. Thus I 
met and refuted his argument on what he terms the 
unpardonable sin. 

Then he brought forward the Rich Man and Laza- 
rus. Under this head, also, he brought up his argument 
on his "hells." He referred to four words translated 
" hell," namely, sheol, hades, tartarus, and gehenna. But 
I showed that none of these words are used in the sense 
of a place of endless punishment. That the sense of a 
place of endless punishment was not found in gehenna 
until so found in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, 
or about the third or fourth century after Christ. I 
showed also that sheol and hades are to be destroyed, 
and that tartarus and gehenna, according to authors he 
quotes, being a part of hades, are to be destroyed also 
with hades ; and so all his " hells " are to be destroyed. 
But he says there is one hell that is not to be destroyed 
— the lake of fire and brimstone, into which the devil 
is to be cast, and where the wicked are to be punished 
in the other world. 

But I tried to find out whether that was a literal 
lake of fire and brimstone into which the bodies of men 
are to be cast, but he has failed to tell us. I showed 
that the devil that was to be thrown into the lake of 
fire is that great red dragon, with the seven heads and 
ten horns, and that enormous tail. I showed that the 
dragon and the beast represented earthly powers that 
were to be overturned, and so the lake of fire was a 
figure of destruction in this world. That it was de- 
struction in this world and not in the future world, I 
showed from the fact that the " beast was to be cast 



CLOSING EEJOINDEE. 457 

alive into the lake of fire," and that the dragon was to 
be tormented in it "day and night" 

He also failed in his argument in regard to the fu- 
ture general judgment. He referred to several passages 
here to prove his position on that question. These I 
met in the progress of the argument, and some of them 
I turned against him, making them proof texts of my 
view of the judgment. Among them was Acts 10 : 
42: 

" And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify 
that it is lie which was ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick 
and dead./ 

1 Peter 4 : 5, 6 : 

" Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick 
and the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to 
them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in 
the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 

And 2 Tim. 4:1: 

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who 
shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his king- 
dom." 

I showed by these passages that Christ was ordained 
to be judge of the quick (the living) and the dead ; 
that he was "ready" 1800 years ago "to judge the 
quick and the dead ; " that he was to judge the dead ac- 
cording to men in the flesh ; that is by the same rule, 
law, or government; and that he commenced the work 
of judging mankind in both worlds, (for he is "Lord 
both of the dead and the living," (Rom. 14 : 9,) " at his 
appearing and kingdom" Now he was not ordained 
thousands of years too soon to do the work to which 
he was ordained. He did not get ready thou- 
sands of years before he intended to commence his 
work ; but he commenced to do the work when he 
came in his kingdom, (Matt. 16 : 27, 28), and so he is 
now judging mankind in his kingdom; judging the liv- 
ing and the dead, men in the flesh, and men out of 
the flesh, all under the same government, by the same 



458 SECOND PEOPOSITION. 

law, and for the same purpose, that they may "live 
according to God in the spirit." But when he sur- 
renders his kingdom, his work of judgment is done. 
So his idea of a future general judgment is done away. 
Besides, at this last coming when he delivers up the 
kingdom, all will have been subdued unto him, and 
then God becomes all in all There will be no need of 
an eternal hell after that occurs, and no wicked to 
suffer in it forever, for all then will be holy and hap- 

py- 

Another passage he has quoted I turned against him 
most effectually, and he fails to notice. I allude to 1 
Thes.4: 13-17: 

" But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning 
them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have 
no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so 
them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this 
we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive 
and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them 
which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangei, and with the trump 
of God ; and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; then we which are 
alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the 
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air ; and so shall we ever be with the 
Lord." 

A literal translation of the words, "them also which 
sleep in Jesus will God bring with him," as I have be- 
fore remarked, would be, " them also which sleep by 
the means, or through Jesus, will God bring with him." 
That is, those who are dead, will God through Jesus 
bring with him. At his last coming Christ brings the 
raised dead with him. If he brings them with him he 
certainly does not bring them up out of the grave. 
The apostle then goes on to say, " that we which are 
alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall 
not prevent [anticipate or go before] them which are 
asleep," for " the dead in Christ shall rise first," or the 
dead shall rise in Christ first, then the living are 
changed, and are caught up with them (the raised 



MR. HUGHES' CLOSING REJOINDER. 459 

dead) in clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and to be 
forever with the Lord. Here again we have the final 
salvation of all; the dead are raised, the living changed, 
and so both the dead and the living become immortal 
and incorruptible. There is no hell here, no lake of 
fire and brimstone, no eternal punishment — none of 
the terrible things which Bro. Carpenter and his friends 
would have us believe are to be the issues of Christ's 
judgments. 

I also call attention to the fact that I showed from 
a goodly number of orthodox commentators, among 
them Mr. A. Campbell himself, that the Old Testa- 
ment deals in temporal rewards and punishments only. 
A. Campbell admits this to have been the case with 
the Jews until the Macedonian and Roman conquests, 
and that brings us down very near the time of the Sav- 
iour. Of course, then, they did not understand sheol 
to mean a place of endless misery. They maintained 
a profound silence in regard to the state of the de- 
ceased in all their earlier writings. They held to tem- 
poral rewards and punishments. So Paul declares that 
under the law " every transgression and disobedience 
received a just recompense of reward." (Heb. 2 : 2). 
He says " received," in the past tense, " a just recom- 
pense of reward." The sanctions of the law, then, 
were temporal and not eternal. What then? Why 
Christ " hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by 
how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, 
which was established on better promises." Heb. 8 : 
6. Now how can we call this a "great salvation," a 
" better covenant," as compared to the old covenant, 
which brought only the liability to temporal punish- 
ment ; if the new exposes to an eternal hell and 
results in the endless woe of vast multitudes of our 
race ? 

I then showed that the express declarations of Scrip- 
tures were against my brother's proposition. I showed 



460 SECOND PKOPOSITION. 

that they declare of God that " he is merciful and 
will not keep anger forever;" that "he will not always 
chide ; " that " he will not cast off forever ;" and that 
"he will not contend forever;" that God himself neg- 
atives the doctrine of endlesss punishment in the most 
emphatic terms. And I must say that it takes a most 
amazing stock of impudence to stand up here and ex- 
hort me, as the brother did in his last speech, and in 
the face of these declarations of the Bible, and of this 
audience, contend for four long days that God will re- 
tain his anger forever, when God says he will not ! 
to contend that God will cast off forever, when God 
says he will not ! ! to argue and plead that God will 
contend forever, when God asserts most solemnly that 
he WILL NOT ! ! ! 

In conclusion, I will say that this doctrine of endless 
punishment is a monstrous superstition, haggard and 
appalling in all its features, a relic of barbarism, with- 
out one redeeming feature in all of its various forms. 
It is, happily, now, a " dying belief," doomed soonto 
pass away, to exist only in the memory of those who 
will wonder at the possibility that human judgments 
could ever be so warped as to receive a doctrine as di- 
vine, so utterly repugnant to reason and the Bible. 

But turn, if you please, and contemplate for a mo- 
ment the beauty of the system of universal grace and 
salvation, with its better view of God the Father, of 
Jesus the Saviour, of man the redeemed — man with 
better hopes, brighter prospects, and confident trust in 
God his Father and Friend, and a blessed immortality. 
The one covers the face of the Deity with clouds which 
frown with darkness, and vails the future with impen- 
etrable shadows in which lurk all the fearful spectres 
of a wretched and frenzied imagination. The other 
shows the face of a Father who loves all his children 
with more than maternal love, and yearns over them 
with infinite pity, care, and love ; and who will provide 






ME. hughes' closing rejoinder. 461 

the robe and ring for all his sorrowing, prodigal chil- 
dren. It lifts the shadow and the vail, and shows the 
bright beaming sun of immortality, whose blessed rays 
warm all hearts, and lifts at last to God and heaven. 

My time will not permit further review of the argu- 
ments of my brother. With mine they are before you, 
and I rest satisfied in the belief and hope that you will 
give them the proper weight upon your minds, and that 
you all will at last accept the doctrine of a world's 

SALVATION. 

[The parties then thanked the audience for their re- 
spectful attention, and the Moderators for their urbane 
and impartial presiding, and expressed towards each 
other mutual respect and good will. After suitable re- 
ligious exercises, the discussion was closed, Eev. J. L. 
Shinn pronouncing the benediction. Reporter.] 



TABLE OP SCKIPTURE QUOTATIONS, 



Text. 

1 :27 


GENESIS. 




Page. 
36 


Te 

3: 

8: 
13 

11: 
21: 

32: 

3: 

14. 

23: 

27: 

2: 
5:< 

16: 
17: 
19: 

22: 

24: 

25: 

45: 

50- 

62: 

62: 

67: 

76 

78- 

86: 

89: 

90: 

94: 

98: 

103 

103 

116 

118 

119 

119 

139 

139 

145 

147 

148 


St. 

28 


1 KINGS. 


Page. 

.127 


2: 
3 • 


17 

la 

19 

3 

1-7 

: 8...'.'.'.'.'. 

: 12 

: 17, 18.. 
: 25 




.230 
.146 

!ii2, 


366 
368, 

127, 


380 
.367 

380 
..153 
..447 

136 
.226 
.392 
.115 
.3S5 
.230 

136 

127 
.226 

242 
...67 

.392 
318 
.242 

...15 


62 

14 






.127 

m 


3: 

6: 
6: 

12 
17 


4 

13 


1 CHRONICLES. 




.127 
14 


18 
18 
18 


22, 23... 


2 CHRONICLES. 






°1 


: 33 








19^ 


22 
9fi 


15-18... 
. 5 




.112 


127 


1-13 

12 

13-15... 
16 


JOB. 






48 
49 
50 


4 

: 26 

: 19, 20.. 

1 


EXODUS. 




'.226 


.110 

.230 
.230 

983 


7- 


B 


PSALMS. 






21 
40 


:6 

: 15 

: 2 






.242 


46 




1 

9, 10.... 






...46 
311 


Ifl 


15 

7 

27, 28... 

7 

1% 

21* 

23 




'.7.7.34 


.230 
417 


95 


: 26 








.318 
...99 


141 


14 


: 30 


NUMBERS. 






.231 
...50 

...87 
143 


11 


: 26-28.. 
: 13 


DEUTERONOMY 






...33 


11,12.. 

12 

2-5 

10 

31-34... 
9, 10.... 
14 


56, 62 


76,87 
15 

82,"95 

'..'.'l42, 
36 


, 94 
417 

.126 
149 


13 








...37 


418 


SO 


: 19 








...81 


143 


sw 


:4 








1,87 
...41 


417 


BJ 


: 35 








2 

19 

2, 3 






?23 


.8?, 


. 40 








..318 

.127 
.127 


419 




7-15 


JUDGES. 






126 




:8,9.... 
: 17, 19. 
: 3, 4.... 




...343, 


355 
47 


9- 






311 




22 


1 SAMUEL. 






: 10 






125 




: 67 






418 










417 


?• 


:7,8 

: 7-10... 






311 




17 


2 SAMUEL. 






14 




: 9 






11 




: 5 






, 13 


13 


: 5, 6.... 






.340 



464 



TABLE OF SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS. 



Text. 
1 • 24-°6 


PROVERBS. 


Page. 
59 


Text. 

3 : 31-33.... 


LAMENTATIONS. 


Page. 
....343, 355 


1 : 28, 29... 




....80 


8: 13 

16: 60-63.. 
18 : 23-32.. 

33: 11 

33 : 13-20.. 


EZEKIEL. 




10: 24 




72 




22: 8 

28: 18 




79 

50 


50 




ECCLESIASTES. 


318 


192 

80 

47, 247 

99 


1:3 









12 : 7 10 

ISAIAH. 

1 : 18 382 

1 : 25-27 418 

4 : 4 418 

9 : 6, 7 290, 301 

14 : 24 66 

25 : 6-8 166, 204 

26 : 14 2-W 

26 : 9 419 

26 : 16 419 

27 : 11 50 

30 : 8 340 

34 : 9. 10 240, 340 

42 : 4 290 

45 : 6, 7 46 

45 : 21 34 

45 : 22-25 142, 143, 191 

46 : 10 13, 66 

46 9-11 46, 59 

53 : 9 282 

53 : 11 71 

53 : 10, 11 92 

55 : 6, 7 50 

55 : 8-11 49, 60 

55:10, 11 13 

57 : 16 343 

65 : 12 80 

JEREMIAH. 

2 : 19 419 

2 : 27 419 

3: 12 343 

3 : 14 36 

3 : 17 267 

7 : 7 340 

17 : 10 385 

18: 7-P 100 

19 : 1-15 404 

20: 11 340 

20 : 14-18 110 

23 : 5 270 

23 : 5, 6 290, 315 

23: 89,40 340, 353 

25 : 5 340 

25 : 9-11 340 



DANIEL. 

44 242 

3 231 

35 13, 86 

14 127 

9 14 446 

13, 14 291 

24 16, 27, 78, 88, 97 

12 : 1-4 229, 268, 269, 435 

12 : 2 207, 380, 426, 448 

12 : 13 250 



HOSEA. 



.419 



5: 12 

8 : 7 79 

13 : 9 87 



1:3 

2: 1,2... 
3 : 3-10. 



.353 
.311 
.100 



18 12 

18, 19 90, 343 



1:13. 
3 : 6... 



...26 
.2^6 



ZECHARIAH. 



6: 12,13 254,255 

14 : 2 126, 267 



2 : 10... 
3:2,3. 
3: 6.... 



.418 
...15 



MATTHEW. 

1 : 21 16, 105 

3 : 12 57 



TABLE OF SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS. 



465 



Text. 



Page. 



5 : 7-10 








262 


5 : 18 








35 


5 : 29, 30 

6 : 9 








339 

36 


6: 10 








....7,61 


7 : 9-11 








37 


10: 28 








.335, 336 


10 :31 








164 


11 : 27-30.... 








141 


12 : 31, 32 ... 

13 : 38 


....307,308 


356, 


368, 


449, 455 
50, 129 


13 : 40-42 








129 


13 : 49, 50 








129 


16 : 13-20.... 








205 


16 : 19 








151 


16 : 25,26.... 








299 


16 : 27, 28.... 
16: 28 


263, 

302 


274, 
313 


289,290,291, 
445, 454, 457 


16 : 28 








315 


17 : 11 








.128, 150 


18: 8 








426 


19 : 24-26 








140 


22 : 11-13 








129 


22 : 15 








...33, 836 


22 : 23-32.... 








162 


22 : 30 








147 


22 : 37-40.... 








34 


23: 32-36 








408 


23 : 37 








....81, g9 


23 : 39 








172 


24: 








274 


24: 3 








251 


24:9 








126 


24: 15-21 








268 


24 : 29-34 








.294, 446 


24: 30-34 








.264, 451 


25 :1 








.276, 292 


25 : 11 








391 


25 : 30 








129 


25 : 31-33 

25 : 32 

25: 31-46 

25 : 41 


...... '.'.'..*225, 

251, 


"228, 
254, 
.129 
297 
403 


.184 

242, 
261, 
393, 
304, 
426, 


283, 293 
.273, 425 
249, 250 
262, 265 
425, 453 


25: 46 

25 : 49 


273, 288, 

358, 375 


332, 337 
435, 454 
242 


26 : 24 








..98, 110 


26 : 28 








160 


26: 41 








98 


27 : 52, 53.... 








394 


28 : 18 








91 


28: 19,20.... 








212 


28:20 








338 



3 : 17 37 

3 : 28, 29 308, 356, 450, 455 



Text. Page. 

3 : 29 226 

4 : 28 34 

5 : 39 322 

9 : 1 424 

9 : 43-45 336 

11 : 17 126 

16 : 15 161 

16 : 16 128, 135, 151, 175 

LUKE. 

1 : 55 .323 

4 : 27 424 

7 : 29, 30 150 

8 : 52-5=5 424 

10:23,24 72 

12 : 4, 5 335, 336, 374 

12 : 47, 48 386 

12 : 57 382 

13 : 33-37 292 

13 :34 ...47, 62, 89 

14 : 12-14 156 

16 : 8 37 

16 : 24, 25 288, 3U2, 310, 333, 358 

16:28 372,398 

19 : 10 91 

20 : 34-38 162 

20: 35 164 

20 : 29-36 148 

21 : 25-32 369 

21 : 36 163 

22 : 42 71 

JOHN. 

1 : 29 16 

2 : 17 353 

3 : 14, 15 104, 124 

3 : 16 11 

3 : 17 12 

3 : 16, 17 190 

3 : 18 136, 195 

3: 35 278,279 

3 : 35, 36 280, 296 

3 : 36 154 

4: 34 91 

4 : 41, 42 92, 105 

5 : 16 308, 455 

5 : 24 416 

5 : 28, 29 : 149 

5 : 40 81 

6 : 37 279, 378 

6 : 37-40 46, 60, 141, 281 

6 : 44, 45 141 

6-44 104,124 

6 i 51-58 323 

8 • 21 129, 139, 151, 158 

172, 173, 174 

8:28 104,124 

8 : 41 388 



466 



TABLE OF SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS. 



Text. 



8 : 41, 42 


50 


8:44 


284 


10:16 


103 


11 : 23-27 


365 

394 


11 : 25, 26 ... 


394 


12:32,33.... 
12:34 


104, 110,124, 136, 141 

.323 


13: 17 


105 


13:33 


: 139, 173, 195 


13 : 35 


2(6 


13:36, 

13 : 36-38 


130,151, 172, 173 

196 


14: 2 


.... 193 


14:2-4 


174 


14: 6 

14: 18 


396 


17:2 




17:12 


281 


17 :21 




1 : 9-11 




1:11 

1 : 16-20 


253, 265, 2S3. 292, 294 

61 


1 :25 

2 : 31 


46 


3 : 25, 26 

4 • 24 


112, 114, 124 

332 


5 : 41 




7:33 


309 


7 • 38-53 




10 : 42 . 


271,457 


13 : 9, 10 




15 : 14 


105 


15 : 18 


13 


17 : 4-15 


228 1 


17 • 5-8 




17 : 28, 29 


36 ( 


17-30 




20 : 28 . . . 


3-7 


23 • 6-8 


422" 


23-14 . 


• 359 


24 : 15.. .. 


156, 423 [ 


26 • 6-8 


114 


1 : 4 


ROMANS. 
157 


1 • 16 


105 


1 -18 


297 


2:5-10 


. 364 


2 • 11-15 


325 


3-34 


116 


3-9 


351 


3 • 13-15 


58 


3 : 20 


395 


3 : 23 


143 


3:30 


351 



Text. Page. 

4 : 15 366 

4 : 20, 21 116 

4 : 25 368 

5 : 6-8 189 

5: 6-11 143 

5 : 6-15 160 

5:8 11, 135 

5 : 9 369 

511 97 

5 : 12-21 144, 145, 202, 214 

5 : 12 381 

5: 17 156 

6 : 7 106 

6 : 9 167 

6 : 19 413 

6 : 21 192 

6 : 21-23 365 

6 : 23 379 

6 : 22, 23 403, 416 

8 : 3-8 ,„-, 9, 77 

8 : 5, 9 88, 96 

8 : 9, 10 77 

8 : 11 50, 153, 194,422, 443 

8 : 16, 17 , 254 

8 : 16-23 184, 215, 444 

8 : 18-23 161, 202, 204, 209 

8 : 35, 39 168, 179, 208 

8 : 38, 39 168, 176, 391 

9 : 2 359 

9 : 3 359, 400 

9 : 8 50 

10 :1, 4 120 

10 : 21 81 

11 : 7, 12 357 

11 : 22 50 

11 : 25-27 172 

11 : 26 62 

12: 1 195,443 

12 ; 19 41 

12 : 19, 21 56, 76, 88 

13 : 3 98 

13 : 10 34 

14 : 9 91, 457 

14 • 23 86 

16 : 25 305 

16 : 26 ....228 

■ 1 CORINTHIANS. 

3: 13, 15 68 

5 : 4, 5 .418, 455 

6 : 20 367 

7 : 23 367 

8 : 13 261 

9 : 26, 27 176, 208 

10 : 5 47 

12 : 3 359 

15 : 12, 20 427 

15 : 12, 17 423 

15: 12,28 155, 214 



TABLE OF SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS. 



467 



Text. 

15 : 13, 14.. 








Page. 
113 


Text. 

1 : 11, 14.. 
1 : 12, 13.. 






Page. 
362 


15 : 19, 22.. 








368 






124 


15 : 20,21.. 








294 


1 : 13. 14.. 


254 


15 : 20, 23.. 
15 : 20, 28.. 
15: 21,28.. 
15:22,28.. 
15 : 23, 52 




."!'.'.".'. !256, 


269, 
.265, 


146 

165 

278, 292 

279, 454 
253 


1 

2 
2 
3 
4 

4 
5 

2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 

3 

1 
2 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
5 
5 

\ 


21 

2 

4,5 

14, 15.. 
6 


391 

37 

11 

104 

36 


15 : 24 








254 


8, 10.... 
.6 

9, 13.... 
12, 13.. 
1, 14.... 

10, 11.. 

11 

20, 21.. 

12, 14.. 
13,24.. 

14 

15, 23... 


PHILLIPIANS. 




.134, 153 


15:24,26.. 
15:31 

15 : 35, 36.. 
15 : 35, 58.. 
15 : 36, 44.. 
15 : 42, 44.. 


""!"""l!!!!ll!l307,'359' 
72,85, 


284 

414 

423 

165 

414 

423 

252 

265 

190 

334 

360, 455 

418 

8 

413,427 
120, 131 
.117,242 
.156, J 66 

132 

156 

45 

...50, 151 
.. 326 


297 

142 

108 


15 : 47, 58.. 
15 : 51, 52.. 

15: 53 

15:55 

16:22 

2:6, 7 

4 : 16, 18... 

5: l, 4 

5: 11 


COLOSSIANS. 

^""..V..V..!.."...'io3 


108 

120 

.123 


127 

.156, 157 
.148, 171 
..91, 167 

123 

117,118 
324, 425 

119 

i32, 150 


5: 14, 21.. 


:16, 17.. 
23 




132 


5: 17 






161 


5: 18,19... 


4 






424 


5: 19 

5:20 

6: 1 

6:2 

6 : 17, 18... 


. 13 

14...- ; 


1 THESSALONIANS. 


50 

228 


8: 12 .... 








..47 


9: 9 

12:2 

13 : 11 








323 

193 

11 


13, 18.. 

: 14 

15, 18.. 
16 


.7.!"....!!!'."i57,'i58 


.265, 
171 


283, 292 
174,394 
171 




GALATIANS. 




338 

359 

114 

113 

. 13, 395 
.127, 351 

115 

113 

116 

109 

104 






.157, 253 




17 






253 


1 : 5 


21... .^ 
23 ....T 






382 

8 


1: 8,9 

3:6 

3: 7,9 

3: 8 


4 10 


2 THESSALONIANS. 
226, 


351, 435 


3:8,9 








1 
1 

1 
2 
2 
3 
4 

1 
1 
1 






163 


3: 9 

3:16 


7, 10.... 
9 


93, 


130, 


139, 253 

.273, 288 


3: 17 

3: 19 


3,4 

10, 12.. 
2 






253 

305 


3:28 






128 


5 : 16,21... 








9 


13 14 






. 395 


1: 7 


EPHESIANS. 




160 


. 4 


1 TIMOTHY. 




221 


1 : 7, 11 


.65, 68, 
118 


76, 83, 94, 
, 119, 120, 


102, 
132, 


103, 108 
135, 150 
....14, 66 


5 






34 




: 19, 20.. 
1,6 






.418. 455 


1: 11 




....65, 69, 136 



468 



TABLE OF SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS. 



Text. 

2:3,6 

2:4 


2 TIM ) THY. 

'"""'1^25^ 2 V6", 
TITUS. 


Page. 

46 

....73, 84, 136 

151 

.116, 151, 305 

116 

63 

291, 324, 459 
254 

116, 305 


Text. 

3: 19,29.... 

4 : 5 


22 


Page. 

, 92, 118, 122, 152 

154,207,362 

271 


1 :2, 3 


4: 5,6 

4: 6 

4 : 17 




..92, ]39, 154, 57 

22,133 

271 


1 : 9,11) 

2: 13 

3: 63 

4 : 1 


1 : 4 


2 PETER 


2:7 


4 : 6, 7 


1 : 5, 11 




278 


1 : 2, 3 


1 : 10,11.... 

1:14 

2: 1 

2 :4 

2 : 6 


v:27, 254, 


325, 362, 432, 410 

172, 196 

367 

391, 393 




HEBREWS. 


337 

254 

309 

320 

167 

136, 141 


361 




2 : 7 




323 


1:2 

1 : 3 


2: 9 

2 : 14 




...10, 17, 281, 297 

299, 306, 332 

130 


2 : 1, 2 


2 : 17 




322 


2:2,3 

2 8, 9.... 


2 : 21.... 




98 


3 : 9 




79 


2 • 9 


3 • 10 . 




353 


2 : 14 




412 

255 

101 

8 

323 

309 

226 

.130, 139, 156 

308 

115 

114 

...:. 323 


4 : 11 




388 


2: 17 

4: 1, 11 

4:12 

5 : 6 


1 : 7 


1 JOHN 


100 


5 : 9.... 


2 : 2 




187 


6: 2 


3 : 3, 4 




106, 136 


6 : 4, 6 


2 : 15, 17.... 




9 


6 : 4, 8 


3 : 3 




82 


6 : 13, 20.... 


3: 4 




366 


6 : 19, 20 ... 


3 : 8 




..16, 107, 215, 284 


6 • 20 


3 • 10 




50 


7 • 16 


3 • 14 




34 


7 • 17 




323 


4 : 7 




34 


8 : 3 


y.7.y.y/.V.7.7.""264 


367 

.320, 426, 454 

160, 228 

314, 323, 424 
309 


4 : 8 




10, 16 


8 • 6 


4 : 13 




18, 106 


9 • 14 


4 : 14 ... 




91 


9-27 28 


4 • 18 




332 


10: 26,31. . 


5 : 9 




12,117 


10:29 

11 • 7 




.160, 304, 432 


5-14 15 




.'...72 


5 : 16 . 




308,355,436 


11 : 24, 25... 




81 


2 


2 JOHN 




11 :35 

12: 4,8 

12-5 6 


149, 170 


175, 230, 363 

57 

........419, 429 

36 


323 


12 : 9 


6 


JUDE. 
389, 




12 : 9, 11 




57 




12 : 14, 15.... 
12 : 29, 41... 


1 PETER. 


156 

57 

327 

207,362 

160 

323 

105 


391, 393, 409, 428 


13: 5 


7 

13 

15 


226, 


240, 305, 446, 448 
253, 3C6, 322, 323 
253 


1 : 3,5 

1 : 18 

1 : 23 

2: 10 


1 • 5 


REVELATIONS. 
160 


1:7 




2&3, 204, 263 



TABLE OF SCRIPTUEE QUOTATIONS. 



469 



Text. 

2 : 10 


Page. 
158, 365 


Text. 

17:5,12 

19 : 6 

19 : 19, 21 

20: 2, 3 


Page. 
411 


3:11 

4 : 8 


363, 377 

390 


14 

37, 403 


4 : 11 


12 

142 

160,390,429 

373,415 

415 

322 

251 

298 


393 


5:13 

7:14,15 

11 : 1 


20:6 

20:10 

20 : 10, 15 


394 

371, 426 

282,284,296, 297 


11 : 3, 8 „ 

11 :11 


20. 13 


298, 322, 446 
425, 435 


11 : 15 


22 : 12 


389, 410 


12 : 3, 6 


21 : 4,8... 


278,279 


12 : 7, 9 


21,371 

50 

390 

362 


21 : 8 


296 


14: 10 


21 : 10, 19 


402 


14:11 


22 : 10, 12 


377 


14:12,13 


22 : 11 


284, 298 


14:30 


80, 158 


22 : 14, 15 


363 


14:4 


22 : 15 


129 







\* 






tf 









- 






^ 










'* rf\> 
















% 






































o v 








■*«, 
















s 














































" 







<t~ 



^,s 















v I 8 









fj. \? 













